ACC campaign, are we barking up the wrong tree?

[White trash]

I see everyone's all up in arms about this, and I can see why. Massive increases are hard to swallow, it hurts. But it's really simple maths. (Fuck this is going to make me unpopular)

ACC is running at a HUGE deficite. Massive. Something has to be done, a number of changes have been suggested by the government.

They've obviously worked out motorcycles cost more to rehabilitate and suffer worse injuries than other road users. And riders of bigger bikes suffer more than riders of small bikes.

So can somebody explain to me rationaly WHY we shouldn't be paying higher levies?

I'm also beginning to think riders of race bikes and dirt bikes should have to pay a levy for each visit to the track or trail. This could potentially lower the road bikes rates at the same time.

[Cynic]

I agree with you in principle but many of us have more than one vehicle. Personally I have three registered vehilces. I don't see why the class of vehicle should attract the ACC levy. I have a license as do many others. I don't see why I can't be billed based on my license classes, base rate for the license plus $X for class 1, $X for class 6 so on and so forth. The method of delivery of this is screwed too, 126 - 600 cc costing $500 ? Sub 126 costing $250... this groups a GN250 with a GSXR600... bizarre....

[MadDuck]

So can somebody explain to me rationaly WHY we shouldn't be paying higher levies?

Obviously I cannot speak for the masses but personally I remember going for life and health insurance a while back.

The insurance company outright said "We do not cover SCUBA divers going beyond 30 metres". I was able to say hey look I am an instructor including an instructor of learners going to beyond 30 metres with an experienced person.

They said Ok...that reduces the risk. We see you are not irresponsible.

I cannot do this with ACC. They decide because my tank is 1200CC I am a high risk and have to pay $500 more a year. That SUCKS!

[Ragingrob]

Could it not be done on an individual basis just like your bike insurance? Riders who crash more often and get injured will have to pay higher premiums for their personal ACC whereas riders who rarely crash get discounts?

[lostinflyz]

I see everyone's all up in arms about this, and I can see why. Massive increases are hard to swallow, it hurts. But it's really simple maths. (Fuck this is going to make me unpopular)

ACC is running at a HUGE deficite. Massive. Something has to be done, a number of changes have been suggested by the government.

They've obviously worked out motorcycles cost more to rehabilitate and suffer worse injuries than other road users. And riders of bigger bikes suffer more than riders of small bikes.

So can somebody explain to me rationaly WHY we shouldn't be paying higher levies?

I'm also beginning to think riders of race bikes and dirt bikes should have to pay a levy for each visit to the track or trail. This could potentially lower the road bikes rates at the same time.

there are problems with the system but making prices soo huge no one will bother paying is a bit foolish. Why do riders of bigger bikes suffer worse injuries??? i see plenty of scooter riders in jandels and short and no jacket all the time, and im sure they dont get hurt nearly as bad as a feller on a big bike with full protection.

Maybe there are bigger issues to raise than just injuries. maybe its smarter to look for ways to reduce injuries (mandatory riding gear??) and wisen everyone up a bit.

Track day riders i beleive do pay a levy each time. part of the MNZ permit and i beleive part of license fees.

[MSTRS]

I fully agree with your last line...
I'm not so sure about the rest.
The problem I have with the whole thing is that ACC is supposed to be a no-fault system of 'insurance' - and still touted as such - yet it is clearly 'user pays'. But the biggest users (Horse riders, cyclists, rugby (and other contact sport) players, etc pay little-to-no more than the average man in the street does out of his/her wages. What about hooking into them?
Secondly, NSW is apparently looking at a sliding scale of cover, dependent on the amount of protective gear bikers (choose to) wear. I've pushed that here in the past.
Thirdly, I can only use one vehicle at a time. What would be wrong with paying a seperate annual fee to ACC which I keep in my pocket, and covers me for any vehicle I use? Oh - that's right - would leave ACC short/er...never happen.
And lastly, if I have a history of NOT crashing and being hurt, why should I pay the same as Joe Squid who spends 2 months every year in hospital etc?

[Headbanger]

So can somebody explain to me rationaly WHY we shouldn't be paying higher levies?



Because others don't have to, Im told that Sports injuries are the most common in NZ, lets se them fuckers hit with some fees.

Then I'll be happy.


Might be a weak argument, But Im sticking with it. That aside, applying charges dependant on CC is bullshit, CC has zero relevance in regards to capabilities of the bike or rider. If thats the best they can come up with then it shows they shouldn't have the role they do.

[White trash]

Obviously I cannot speak for the masses but personally I remember going for life and health insurance a while back.

The insurance company outright said "We do not cover SCUBA divers going beyond 30 metres". I was able to say hey look I am an instructor including an instructor of learners going to beyond 30 metres with an experienced person.

They said Ok...that reduces the risk. We see you are not irresponsible.

I cannot do this with ACC. They decide because my tank is 1200CC I am a high risk and have to pay $500 more a year. That SUCKS!
So what do we do? One option would be to make insurance compulsary, then charge the acc levie on your insurance based on your previous history.

[sAsLEX]

They've obviously worked out motorcycles cost more to rehabilitate and suffer worse injuries than other road users. And riders of bigger bikes suffer more than riders of small bikes.

Rugby. Netball. Soccer. All played by hundreds of thousands every day in this country and have some fairly serious injuries that result.

How much does a 16 year quadriplegic cost ACC if he lives to 70 after a failed scrum?




So can somebody explain to me rationaly WHY we shouldn't be paying higher levies?

I'm also beginning to think riders of race bikes and dirt bikes should have to pay a levy for each visit to the track or trail. This could potentially lower the road bikes rates at the same time.

I ride my off road bike not at a paying track.

Why this focus on vehicles? I hurt myself more often on my push bike!

Why do I pay multiple ACC levies across all my vehicles? Can I crash two at the same time? Does owning multiple vehicle increase my risk of injury to ACC?

[sleemanj]

As I understand it, ACC's problems are largely paper based.

Investments have tanked leading up to and during the recesssion leading to a massive defecit, on paper.

The thing is, these investments are long term, they are not intended for paying the current claims, they are for future claims.

Investments will recover over time, the economy is already turning around in my opinion faster than most people expected, this was a pretty brief recession is you ask me.

I believe that National is using this for political mileage, the huge increases are just not justified except so that they can say in a couple years "hey look how great we are, we saved ACC", instead of smaller increase and a modest 10 years while the investments recover.

[MadDuck]

So what do we do? One option would be to make insurance compulsary, then charge the acc levie on your insurance based on your previous history.

That could be an option for sure. At first glance it would seem much more fair on those of us who have NEVER claimed on ACC before....surely ?

But then how far does it go? Compulsory insurance for rugby players? Cyclists? Then ACC doesnt really have a role to pay in NZ. We become a lot more like the USA.

Good or bad? Dont know to be honest.

[Ninja750]

Hi all

Follow this link and make you voice count, with enough responses you never know what can happen.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nzbikers_vs_acc

Thanks

[White trash]

That could be an option for sure. At first glance it would seem much more fair on those of us who have NEVER claimed on ACC before....surely ?

But then how far does it go? Compulsory insurance for rugby players? Cyclists? Then ACC doesnt really have a role to pay in NZ. We become a lot more like the USA.

Good or bad? Dont know to be honest.
I've had two bike accidents requiring the services of ACC for surgery/hospital treatment/ambulance rides/loss of earnings. Two in 28 years on two wheels which aint toooo bad (not quite you're glowing record but then I suspect you're a good deal more responsible than me:) )

Anyway, for the medical treatment alone I received, I think it would take me about 65 years of continuous motorcycle rego @ 750/year to pay it back.

I would also hazrad a guess, that probably 75% (and yes, I'm guessing) of motorcyclists will require medical treatment covered by ACC in their riding career at leats once, maybe more. Hospital treatment certainly aint cheap you know.

[Mom]

I like the no-fault cover that we have at the moment, but the way it is funded needs to be looked at much more widely. To simply say, to fund the huge cost of supporting people injured on motorbikes, we will increase the levy on all road registered bikes is so short sighted it is not funny. Bleat and moan as we will, nothing will change unless we all, and I mean ALL get together and make a noise as one voice!

[Jonno.]

What about what you pay in income?
And petrol?
And car rego?

[White trash]

Hi all

Follow this link and make you voice count, with enough responses you never know what can happen.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nzbikers_vs_acc

Thanks
Ummm, you're new so I'll be gentle.

Fuck off please (I said please) and spam someone elses thread who actually disagrees with the levy hike. I'm still on the fence and don''t need to be told what to do thanks very much.

There's a good boy.......

[Pixie]

nothing will change unless we all, and I mean ALL get together and make a noise as one voice!

Well we are fucked then

[Mom]

Well we are fucked then

Dont be like that eh? Yes we are a diverse bunch, with hugely different lives and perspectives and cultures, but we can at least make a concerted effort to use an if not same voice, at least one that sounds the same, just spoken with different words?

I have to mention cats here too, for some strange reason.

[MadDuck]

I would also hazrad a guess, that probably 75% (and yes, I'm guessing) of motorcyclists will require medical treatment covered by ACC in their riding career at leats once, maybe more. Hospital treatment certainly aint cheap you know.

I have no problem whatsoever with contributing to ACC god forbid I (or my friends) may need it one day just like all my personal insurance.

The thing that I guess gets on my nerve (was going to say tit but thought better of it) is that it appears to be an unfair levy. An outright increase purely based on the engine capacity of the bike I chose to ride just doesnt make sense.

I doubt I am more responsible than you .... maybe just lucky?

[White trash]

there are problems with the system but making prices soo huge no one will bother paying is a bit foolish.

Yup. That's why I'm looking for balanced arguments to find better solutions.


Why do riders of bigger bikes suffer worse injuries??? i see plenty of scooter riders in jandels and short and no jacket all the time, and im sure they dont get hurt nearly as bad as a feller on a big bike with full protection.

Because riders of scooters and commuters lose a bit of skin. Bigger open road riders are going faster and lose MORE skin/break bones/take others with them. This isn't made up by the way, open road accidents hurt more than city accidents. I've proved it to myself time and time again.


Maybe there are bigger issues to raise than just injuries. maybe its smarter to look for ways to reduce injuries (mandatory riding gear??) and wisen everyone up a bit.

Definitely. Thinking going on here, I like it.


Track day riders i beleive do pay a levy each time. part of the MNZ permit and i beleive part of license fees.

Trackdays haven't got a thing to do with MNZ. In regards to racing, if there is a levy on licence fees it's seriously fuck all comparitively.

[Katman]

I hear what you're saying WT but........

I haven't claimed a cent off ACC for about 20 years.

I'd hate to tally up what I've paid out to them over that time though.

[White trash]

I have no problem whatsoever with contributing to ACC god forbid I (or my friends) may need it one day just like all my personal insurance.

The thing that I guess gets on my nerve (was going to say tit but thought better of it) is that it appears to be an unfair levy. An outright increase purely based on the engine capacity of the bike I chose to ride just doesnt make sense.

I doubt I am more responsible than you .... maybe just lucky?
Bullshit, you know you are.

Anyway, I aggree it is unfair that simply because of the engine size of bike you'll be penalized. Perhaps we should have "city limit" levies and "open road" levies.

[White trash]

I hear what you're saying WT but........

I haven't claimed a cent off ACC for about 20 years.

I'd hate to tally up what I've paid out to them over that time though.
Yeah mate, I hear ya. You're really shit at wheelies though as a result :)

Tell ya what, there's no reason why they can't have a sliding "no claims" bonus scale on regos. I mean the bike's registered in your name, it's easy enough to check your ACC file history @ rego time each year, that works well.

Someone make it a proposal.

[Ixion]

I hear what you're saying WT but........

I haven't claimed a cent off ACC for about 20 years.

I'd hate to tally up what I've paid out to them over that time though.


I've been paying levies (on multiple vehicles, too) ever since ACC existed (and to NIMU before that). never claimed a cent.

[Ixion]

Yeah mate, I hear ya. You're really shit at wheelies though as a result :)

Tell ya what, there's no reason why they can't have a sliding "no claims" bonus scale on regos. I mean the bike's registered in your name, it's easy enough to check your ACC file history @ rego time each year, that works well.

Someone make it a proposal.

We can propose. problem is the Minisiter and ACC will say "Yes, interesting proposal, we're working on it. Come back in 10 years time".

[MadDuck]

Tell ya what, there's no reason why they can't have a sliding "no claims" bonus scale on regos. I mean the bike's registered in your name, it's easy enough to check your ACC file history @ rego time each year, that works well.

Someone make it a proposal.


I've been paying levies (on multiple vehicles, too) ever since ACC existed (and to NIMU before that). never claimed a cent.

So is this the direction we should be putting our efforts into? Would Bronz be prepared to go down that track?

[Ixion]

BRONZ is prepared to go down whatever track it's membership wants it to.

But a change of that nature would take several years for the government to implement.

[Kiwi Graham]

Ok we have to pay ACC levys.
What about
Discount for insurance
Discount for no claims periods
Discount for recognised training
Discount for using approved riding gear.

Getting cash cows to pay for everything without offering incentives to improve matters is bloody blinkered

[rainman]

As I understand it, ACC's problems are largely paper based.

Investments have tanked leading up to and during the recesssion leading to a massive defecit, on paper.

The thing is, these investments are long term, they are not intended for paying the current claims, they are for future claims.

Investments will recover over time, the economy is already turning around in my opinion faster than most people expected, this was a pretty brief recession is you ask me.

I believe that National is using this for political mileage, the huge increases are just not justified except so that they can say in a couple years "hey look how great we are, we saved ACC", instead of smaller increase and a modest 10 years while the investments recover.

Although I can't agree with you about the recession, the rest of what you say is spot on. The major deficits that Nick Smith has been bleating about (with the media running his lines faithfully) are between current assets and future liabilities - one would have to ask why now, of all times, in the middle of the worst recession in 80 years, the government is continuing with an aggressive plan to catch up with future funding liabilities. This really isn't necessary at all. By some estimates if they just pushed that deadline to 2019 the need for significant increases would evaporate.

Now, undoubtedly what's covered by ACC should be looked at from time to time, and the occasional bit of reasoned tweaking around the edges is always good - continuous improvement and all that. Ditto ensuring the scheme is well administered, although by some accounts this is already the case. (Regarding your points about their investments - I understood their investment team had outperformed the general market and many of their peers? Will have to look at this again). Even modest fee increases are acceptable.

I think National's game is to say "we tried to save ACC, honest we did, trust us, but the only option was to hand it over to our mates in the insurance industry, they'll look after you, really, trust us". And most people will believe it, without any further thought.

[MadDuck]

But a change of that nature would take several years for the government to implement.

I understand totally. Just throwing the question out there really.

[Timber020]

Mr Key was a part of the insurance industry in Aus, an industry that sees systems such as ACC as evil because it limits how much money it can make in places such as NZ. An insurance agent I dealt with in the US told me that they were told about ACC in the US as being there industrys worst nightmare.

I suspect they are trying to make ACC seem like such an overpriced failed system that we roll over if a "cheaper" system in which private insurance companys start taking over ACC's roll.

Insurance companies get an easy in, get established then hike the prices and we are screwed.

[AD345]

There is no deficit.

There is, thanks to changed accounting practices, an increased potential future liability.

There is also a idealogical change in the Government

[Fluffy Cat]

:mad:Bad bad bad just listen to us POM's on this one. You think ACC is expensive he he think again. In 1992 i was a 23 year old police officer with a no claims since i was 16. My insurance then 3rd party of course was 650 pounds. It is much worse now. We have a good system here but are small population wise with few insurers. I am with AA at the moment and they do not cover my bikes as a group so i have to insure separately. You can bet compulsory insurance will suck big time.
Looks like its going to suck any way.

[tommorth]

I think National's game is to say "we tried to save ACC, honest we did, trust us, but the only option was to hand it over to our mates in the insurance industry, they'll look after you, really, trust us". And most people will believe it, without any further thought.

this is the bit that worrys me. It would just end up costing more giving less cover and making some rich people richer


making the fee capacity based make little sense to me.


there was a list of numbers of acc claims from sporting injurys last year in the herald the leader was golf

[xgnr]

That this is just a tactic to get the levy up to substantially with some smart spin going on.

Watch the "back down" to 75% of the increase after the "consultation" process.

We have to scream else it will stay as it is.

They set expectations of huge rises elsewhere that ACC demanded and now the Govt has stated that it is "too much" and they have reduced it.

I think heard on the radio that the Bike levy has been set at what ACC wanted so there will be room to get it reduced.

[Highlander]

Insurance companies get an easy in, get established then hike the prices and we are screwed.


You can bet compulsory insurance will suck big time.
Looks like its going to suck any way.

Be that as it may, with the proposed changes it will cost more to register our bikes (3 in our household) than it curently costs to insure those three bikes AND the three cars we have.

[carver]

ACC is super inefficent.

ask anyone who is up there in workplace insurance.

4x the staff to do half the job

oh, and hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

to all you people who thought national would bring change.

fooled again NZ!

[sinfull]

Discount for using approved riding gear.


Ummmm had to quote that before you deleted it lol

:I am with AA at the moment and they do not cover my bikes as a group so i have to insure separately. You can bet compulsory insurance will suck big time.
Looks like its going to suck any way.try Kiwibike !!!
But of course thats a bit of a digresion as we are talking liability insurace not vehicular here ! Which it will turn into if we lose ACC Americanisation, scary word huh ?
Pleased this thread was started WT, brings more options out to the fore ! Xion, would Bronze have their own lawyer ?
Perhaps i should join now to help fund any legal action ? Would i be allowed to ride through Wa... opps WHanganui ?
Bwhahahahaha sorted, have a mate who will do me a bronze BRONZE to mount on the bike !!!

[Fluffy Cat]

Be that as it may, with the proposed changes it will cost more to register our bikes (3 in our household) than it curently costs to insure those three bikes AND the three cars we have.

Yeah amen there. We have 2 cars and 4 bikes ouch.

[cs363]

I hear what you're saying WT but........

I haven't claimed a cent off ACC for about 20 years.

I'd hate to tally up what I've paid out to them over that time though.

Yep, 33 years of motorcycling and never claimed one cent from the fuckers for a motorcycle related injury. Now they want two grand plus a year out me for the two big road bikes I have which don't even get used every day!

Don't mind contributing, but add my car rego plus the work ute and my wage contribution and I'm starting to feel a tingling sensation in my behind...

[monkeymcbean]

As I understand it, ACC's problems are largely paper based.

Investments have tanked leading up to and during the recesssion leading to a massive defecit, on paper.

The thing is, these investments are long term, they are not intended for paying the current claims, they are for future claims.

Investments will recover over time, the economy is already turning around in my opinion faster than most people expected, this was a pretty brief recession is you ask me.

I believe that National is using this for political mileage, the huge increases are just not justified except so that they can say in a couple years "hey look how great we are, we saved ACC", instead of smaller increase and a modest 10 years while the investments recover.


Here is a indepth eplaination as to why they need our money


http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=rod+oram+acc&meta=&aq=f&oq=


comes up top of the page

[Naki Rat]

I see everyone's all up in arms about this, and I can see why. Massive increases are hard to swallow, it hurts. But it's really simple maths. (Fuck this is going to make me unpopular)

ACC is running at a HUGE deficit. Massive. Something has to be done, a number of changes have been suggested by the government.

They've obviously worked out motorcycles cost more to rehabilitate and suffer worse injuries than other road users. And riders of bigger bikes suffer more than riders of small bikes.

So can somebody explain to me rationaly WHY we shouldn't be paying higher levies?

I'm also beginning to think riders of race bikes and dirt bikes should have to pay a levy for each visit to the track or trail. This could potentially lower the road bikes rates at the same time.

ACC is on the skids but the bigger problem is that the government's entire coffers are in similar shape. They are not in a position to bail out ACC from the general fund 'cause there pretty much isn't anything left there.

I'm not comfortable trying to make this issue appear less significant than it is but this I fear is the first of many cash grabs that will be made from the New Zealand population as the government attempts to stem the bleeding that is going on in the country's finances. The news story (http://www.3news.co.nz/Tax-cuts-recession-bite-into-Govt-funds/tabid/419/articleID/125405/cat/68/Default.aspx) that was rolled out minutes after the ACC lead story stated that the government will be forced to borrow $250 million per week for at least the next four years due to the reduced tax take caused by the recession (which is far from over yet in my opinion). The two stories' link was obvious. Gareth Morgan predicted heavy taxation after the recession had peaked and his voice of economic truth (good or bad) has been conspicuous by his abscence over the past few months of rose-tinted economic news stories.

Sure we need to smarten up if we hope to mitigate this blatant cash grab from a sector of the population who to be honest don't have much sympathy from the general populace so maybe the "Don't look so smug mate, they'll be emptying your wallet next" approach might help us to gain some traction in any course of action.

[firefighter]

oh, and hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

to all you people who thought national would bring change.

fooled again NZ!

They're still trying to recover from the mess that the 'beneficiary voters hero party' left the country in......add the recession into it....I think they've done ok.

A bit off topic but.

[pete376403]

There is no deficit.

There is, thanks to changed accounting practices, an increased potential future liability.

There is also a idealogical change in the Government
An opinion piece in the Dompost this morning gave an example of a plumber being injured this year and unable to work/requiring care for the next FORTY years. The proposal is the the next FORTY years care is to be funded out of income received in the year the accident occurs i.e THIS year. There are a whole bunch of assumptions being made - the plumber will never work again, will require care for forty years, will live another forty years, inflation rates, investment rates, all sort of things. Yet these assumptions are being touted as gospel and unless something is done right now, ACC will fall apart. Nick Smith and John Judge, if not outright lying, are being extremely economical with the truth.

[cs363]

Sure we need to smarten up if we hope to mitigate this blatant cash grab from a sector of the population who to be honest don't have much sympathy from the general populace so maybe the "Don't look so smug mate, they'll be emptying your wallet next" approach might help us to gain some traction in any course of action.

Good call mate :niceone:

[Highlander]

"Don't look so smug mate, they'll be emptying your wallet next"

I think that would be perfect for the Protest T-shirt run that has been suggested. :clap:

[Marknz]

Did I hear correctly on the radio the other day that the CEO of ACC got a $40-$60K payrise this year, and that the number of managers at ACC on salaries of $300K or more doubled in the last 12 months? All this in a financial crisis when most government departments are having to go without payrises at all this year?

Fuck that. I'll happily take my plates in to the Post Shop tomorrow and tell them to de-register the 600.

[pete376403]

Rod Orams article. Short on rhetoric, long on facts.

ACC IS a mess, according to the prime minister and Nick Smith, the agency's minister.

Only a wholesale clearout of ACC's board and changes to legislation and policy will secure its future, they say.

To make their case, the two politicians are flinging lots of scary numbers around. ACC has suffered a "very significant blowout in its liabilities" to $22 billion, the prime minister said on TV3 on Tuesday.

ACC is "massively" under-funded, so either "premiums will go up and go up enormously so literally mum and dad will be paying thousands of dollars a year more or we get on top of this scheme", he added.

For his part, Smith said on March 4 that the latest analysis of ACC's liabilities "translates into ACC levy increases over the next five years of 185% for employees, 71% for employers, 129% for motor vehicle owners".

But there is a huge gap between the rhetoric of John Key and Smith, and reality.

Liabilities: They are indeed $21.875b according to the latest report from PricewaterhouseCoopers, ACC's actuaries. And they will have risen by $9.2b in the three financial years ending this June.

But these liabilities stretch out a maximum of 40 years. And they are highly influenced by changes in economic conditions, investment returns, discount rates, accounting standards and actuarial assumptions.

Over the past year, those external factors have contributed the lion's share of the increase in liabilities. For example, a change in international accounting standards for all insurers contributed $1.45b to the $9.2b.

Some of these adverse factors will turn positive in due course. If ACC massively hiked premiums now to cover paper liabilities, it would have to offer massive refunds when the liabilities failed to eventuate. Instead, it manages prudently by smoothing such swings over the medium term.

Funding: From its inception in 1974 to 1999, ACC was funded on a pay-as-it-goes basis from the levies of the day and annual government grants. But its long-term liabilities were largely unfunded.

When Labour took office in 1999, it decided to be prudent. It set the goal of achieving full funding for all liabilities by 2014, and beefed up ACC's finances to set it on that path. From 1999 to 2008, ACC had improved from 64% under-funded to 45%.

Turmoil in global financial markets has hit investment returns over the past year, delaying progress to full funding. But ACC was on to it. Over a year ago, it recommended to Maryan Street, ACC minister in the previous government, that the date for full funding should be moved to 2019. Doing so halves the increases in ACC levies that would otherwise be required to meet the goal.

As her successor, Smith agrees in ACC meetings that the date should be moved. But he continues to use estimates of levy increases, as he did on March 4, based on the current date, thereby seriously distorting the view the public is getting of ACC.

Levies: ACC's activities are divided up into six accounts. Levies fund four, the government one and a mix of the two fund the last. The process of setting levies is thorough and transparent. For example, a steering committee includes representatives from Business New Zealand, the Council of Trade Unions and the AA.

At the end of its part of the process, ACC recommends new levies to its minister. The minister then takes independent advice from the Department of Labour before making a proposal to cabinet.

Back in October, ACC recommended modest increases to levies for the coming financial year. In contrast, the Department of Labour recommended far higher ones, mostly because it was pushing for full-funding on the old timetable.

Smith used these unreasonable Department of Labour figures to fulminate about ACC's alleged shortcomings and to scare people into believing massive hikes were coming.

But lo and behold, on three of the four accounts funded by levies, the government has agreed to exactly the low increases ACC proposed. Only on one account did it set the rate slightly higher.

The rates are bargains. For example, the work account remains fully funded even though the levy for employers and self-employed rises only 4% from $1.26 to $1.31 per $100 of payroll. This even covers large increases in the likes of doctors' and nurses' wages.

And they are bargains by international comparison. According to Pricewaterhouse-Coopers' mammoth study of ACC last year, the average levy here was 94 cents per $100 of payroll in 2006-07 while the average Australian rate was $1.73, ranging from a low of $1.18 in Queensland to a high of $3.14 in South Australia.

Entitlements: The previous National government had made ACC a mean and ugly agency. Policy directives forced it to cut corners and throw people off benefits at the earliest opportunity. If you felt hard done by, you had to go to court.

The Labour government somewhat widened the scope of ACC by, for example, removing the malpractice test on medical injury, doing more for long-term workplace injuries such as hearing loss and bringing in hard to define but real issues such as workplace trauma.

The new National government sharply criticises these increased entitlements. It is threatening to roll them back. Yet, of the $9.2b increase to $22b in ACC's liabilities for the three years to this June, only $595m came from cabinet-approved rate increases and new programmes plus $205m from court-imposed rulings and government legislative changes to expand the scheme's coverage.

The new government seems particularly worried about ACC's non-earners account. It is the second-largest of the six accounts and it is the only one the government funds directly and exclusively. And it is the one for which it has had to find recently an additional $297m.

This fund covers people not in paid work, that is, mostly young and older citizens. More than 45% of all ACC claims are made through it, yet it represents less than 20% of ACC's liabilities. If the government is trying to cut this account, it will run into a storm of public protest.

Rehabilitation: ACC's record on getting people back to work is deteriorating, the government says. Yes, it has slipped. But there is a small global decline in return to work rates for a wide range of factors, including an ageing workforce. ACC's performance is still better than Australia's and among the best in the world. Moreover, the same slight downward trend applies to the 24% of our workforce covered by the accredited employers programme. So there is no difference between ACC or employers handling their rehabilitation.

Costs: The comments of Key and Smith might give you the impression that ACC has poor cost control. In fact, PWC's analysis shows ACC's work account claims management and administration costs were 19.7% of services against the Australian average of 25.2%. In other words, ACC pays out 80.3c of every dollar on compensation and services whereas the Australians pay out only 74.8c.

Yes, in these tighter times even better budget control is needed. ACC was long working on that before National came to power.

Investments: You might also have thought from government comments that ACC's investment managers had lost a bundle in the global financial markets.

In fact, for the seven months to the end of January they earned a positive return of 2.73%, a gain almost all other fund managers only dreamed of as global markets crashed.

Unusually, ACC has its own in-house investment team led by Nicholas Bagnall and Phil Newport. They have outperformed all comparable investment teams in the private sector in New Zealand for the past 10 years and in Australasia for the past seven, earning a return of 8.7% a year. ACC has out-performed the Superannuation Fund since the latter's inception, despite the latter's more costly use of external fund managers.

All the information in this column comes from widely available sources, including ACC's briefing to the incoming minister, dated November 2008.

So the government can only be taking its extreme line on ACC because it's panicking or politicking.

If it is the latter, it must have its sights set on sharply cutting ACC's services.

[mossy1200]

Did I hear correctly on the radio the other day that the CEO of ACC got a $40-$60K payrise this year, and that the number of managers at ACC on salaries of $300K or more doubled in the last 12 months? All this in a financial crisis when most government departments are having to go without payrises at all this year?

Fuck that. I'll happily take my plates in to the Post Shop tomorrow and tell them to de-register the 600.

maybe they should trim their own fat before they go for our cash.
300k mangers is bollocks.They do fuck all and have private assistants most likely.

[Marknz]

the only benefit I can see out of this is that VMCC are going to have some massive grids for the 2010 Winter Series :clap:

:dodge:

[mossy1200]

the only benefit I can see out of this is that VMCC are going to have some massive grids for the 2010 Winter Series :clap:

:dodge:

Yes but your race licence will cost $1084.25c by they time they add a little acc levy

[Marknz]

Yes but your race licence will cost $1084.25c by they time they add a little acc levy

And I won't get to race because I'll be too slow to qualify on the grid.... for Clubmans! :weep:

[StoneY]

I've had two bike accidents requiring the services of ACC for surgery/hospital treatment/ambulance rides/loss of earnings. Two in 28 years on two wheels which aint toooo bad (not quite you're glowing record but then I suspect you're a good deal more responsible than me:) )

Good for you, in 25 years as a full license holder I have had ONE accident and got nothing from ACC, not a fuckin thing, so why the hell should I pay 1500$ in LEVY'S alone above the share I pay on my cage too?

Ok if they said "you own a big bore bike, so your ACC fee for that is 750$ coz its an 1100...but that fee also covers the levy on your Ducati 916 and your 1600cc automobile,, as its the highest singular levy on your transport insurance cover" I could live with it, I really could and bet you most of us here could too...if ONE levy applied accross the board to MY body while I travel on our roads

To hit me for BOTH bikes, and the car on top of that, when I can ONLY ride/drive one at a time anyway, is shameless profiteering by the government agency supposedly 'looking after us' for 'no fault cover'

[beyond]

The problems:
1. Massive infrastructure and heavily padded with high income earners.
2. High risk sports have no premiums.
3. We fund all overseas visitor accidents. A single skier here on holiday who earns a huge income can holiday here and cost the "KIWI" 100's of thousands of dollars. We don't get this treatment overseas but need insurance when we travel... why the hell not visitors here.
4. Motorcyle accidents... cover all off road incidents, farmbikes, motocross, trials... you name it.
5. We a;ready pay for our cars, the wife's car, our own car, our own bike or bikes. Other road users like cyclists pay nothing but get injured heaps as well.

The list goes on.

The average Kiwi is working longer, harder and for less. We are in a recession, no wage increases, minimal tax cut, finding it harder to get by.

Most over 600cc owners have done it tough. Helped their kids get started without government grants, worked bloody hard to be able to afford a motorbike to enjoy some pleasure while young enough and now we are getting screwed left right and centre. We pay tax, we work harder, we pay more ACC tax, we work harder, then we get screwed on the few pleasure left in life.

Screwed to the point that dealers will have to close down, owners of bikes will have to sell them.. for how much?

So it goes on.

It is time to rise as one voice and tell the piglets in animal farm that enough is enough. They have feed too long at the trough of convenience. They have sucked at the public trough too long and have got too fat to realise what it's like for the average worker.

They give themselves increases every year and tell us to tighten our belts and then we find out more and more purks they get and the list gets bigger.

I'm just a tad angry you might gather.

[Fluffy Cat]

Ok if they said "you own a big bore bike, so your ACC fee for that is 750$ coz its an 1100...but that fee also covers the levy on your Ducati 916 and your 1600cc automobile,, as its the highest singular levy on your transport insurance cover" I could live with it, I really could and bet you most of us here could too...if ONE levy applied accross the board to MY body while I travel on our roads

To hit me for BOTH bikes, and the car on top of that, when I can ONLY ride/drive one at a time anyway, is shameless profiteering by the government agency supposedly 'looking after us' for 'no fault cover'

Amen to that, well said.
We are talking revenue collection full stop... And we are easy targets:headbang:

[PrincessBandit]

I agree with you in principle but many of us have more than one vehicle. Personally I have three registered vehilces. I don't see why the class of vehicle should attract the ACC levy. I have a license as do many others. I don't see why I can't be billed based on my license classes, base rate for the license plus $X for class 1, $X for class 6 so on and so forth. The method of delivery of this is screwed too, 126 - 600 cc costing $500 ? Sub 126 costing $250... this groups a GN250 with a GSXR600... bizarre....

A GSXR600 has 125hp and 67 Nm torque; my husbands 650 Burgman (which is actually 638cc) has 55 hp and 62 Nm torque, my 650 GSF bandit has 85 hp and 64 Nm torque.

Simply because Balu's burger has a bigger displacement (by a whole 39cc)* he gets classified as riskier than the GSXR600 which has over double the horse power!!! :scratch:

*the Gixxer is 599cc cf. 638cc for the Burgman

[oldrider]

Threaten to disrupt the RWC unless they pull their heads in on this bike rego crap! :argh:

[Highlander]

To hit me for BOTH bikes, and the car on top of that, when I can ONLY ride/drive one at a time anyway, is shameless profiteering by the government agency supposedly 'looking after us' for 'no fault cover'


While I can see what you are saying, I can also see that in our case while all the Registrations on our vehicles come out of MY pocket, it is not uncommon that the 5 of us in our household are going different directions and only one of the 6 vehichles is home. So in this example I appreciate all of us being covered.

[cs363]

While I can see what you are saying, I can also see that in our case while all the Registrations on our vehicles come out of MY pocket, it is not uncommon that the 5 of us in our household are going different directions and only one of the 6 vehichles is home. So in this example I appreciate all of us being covered.

Yes, but presumably (and hopefully) you wouldn't all be crashing simultaneously? ;)
Perhaps your situation adds to an earlier suggestion by someone about having the ACC levy linked to your drivers licence rather than the vehicle registration?

[StoneY]

They're still trying to recover from the mess that the 'beneficiary voters hero party' left the country in......add the recession into it....I think they've done ok.

A bit off topic but.

What a crock
Theyve not kept ONE fuckin election promise...not one now theyre ripping us all off blatantly

John Key is all for the big businessman dude its part of his master plan to 'privatise' ACC

He's counting on us begging them to privatize rather than pay the Levy's

[Highlander]

Yes, but presumably (and hopefully) you wouldn't all be crashing simultaneously? ;)

That prospect isn't worth dwelling on.


Perhaps your situation adds to an earlier suggestion by someone about having the ACC levy linked to your drivers licence rather than the vehicle registration?

Certainly does, either that or private insurance (granted, the whole concept of ACC is to get away from that). That way we (all users) could get recognition for not making claims and / or doing training to prevent the likely hood of making a claim.

[cs363]

That prospect isn't worth dwelling on.

No offence - that was a tongue in cheek remark. :)


Certainly does, either that or private insurance (granted, the whole concept of ACC is to get away from that). That way we (all users) could get recognition for not making claims and / or doing training to prevent the likely hood of making a claim.

The more I think about it, the more the drivers licence thing makes sense - especially if you consider the situation of a licenced driver who doesn't own their own vehicle but drives other peoples. I would imagine there's quite a few people in that boat, especially kids driving parents vehicles who are unfortunately in that age group who are over-represented in the accident statistics.

[Highlander]

No offence - that was a tongue in cheek remark. :)



No offence taken. I was agreeing whole heartedly.

[Ooky]

just print a rego plate of the plates website laminate it and whack it on the back cheaper to get acouple of no rego fines then pay the rego:lol::2thumbsup

[monkeymcbean]

the problems:
1. Massive infrastructure and heavily padded with high income earners.
2. High risk sports have no premiums.
3. We fund all overseas visitor accidents. A single skier here on holiday who earns a huge income can holiday here and cost the "kiwi" 100's of thousands of dollars. We don't get this treatment overseas but need insurance when we travel... Why the hell not visitors here.
4. Motorcyle accidents... Cover all off road incidents, farmbikes, motocross, trials... You name it.
5. We a;ready pay for our cars, the wife's car, our own car, our own bike or bikes. Other road users like cyclists pay nothing but get injured heaps as well.

The list goes on.

The average kiwi is working longer, harder and for less. We are in a recession, no wage increases, minimal tax cut, finding it harder to get by.

Most over 600cc owners have done it tough. Helped their kids get started without government grants, worked bloody hard to be able to afford a motorbike to enjoy some pleasure while young enough and now we are getting screwed left right and centre. We pay tax, we work harder, we pay more acc tax, we work harder, then we get screwed on the few pleasure left in life.

Screwed to the point that dealers will have to close down, owners of bikes will have to sell them.. For how much?

So it goes on.

It is time to rise as one voice and tell the piglets in animal farm that enough is enough. They have feed too long at the trough of convenience. They have sucked at the public trough too long and have got too fat to realise what it's like for the average worker.

They give themselves increases every year and tell us to tighten our belts and then we find out more and more purks they get and the list gets bigger.

I'm just a tad angry you might gather.


here is another excellent submission

[DogBreath]

Yes I have a serious alternative. Rate the levies on exposure to risk. I ride about 2500km per year, and pay the same rego as someone who clocks up 25000km. They have 10 times the exposure to risk than me but I pay the same levy. Admittedly they also have 10 times the riding experience, so maybe the risk to them is only (say) 5 times mine.
This ruling would force me to rethink how I manage my rego, perhaps only register the bike for the summer, when I use it most, put it on hold while I'm away or committed to the car.

[Highlander]

Yes I have a serious alternative. Rate the levies on exposure to risk. I ride about 2500km per year, and pay the same rego as someone who clocks up 25000km. They have 10 times the exposure to risk than me but I pay the same levy. Admittedly they also have 10 times the riding experience, so maybe the risk to them is only (say) 5 times mine.
This ruling would force me to rethink how I manage my rego, perhaps only register the bike for the summer, when I use it most, put it on hold while I'm away or committed to the car.

All vehicles on the road buy mileage like Diesels do?

[Mort]

:mad:Bad bad bad just listen to us POM's on this one. You think ACC is expensive he he think again. In 1992 i was a 23 year old police officer with a no claims since i was 16. My insurance then 3rd party of course was 650 pounds. It is much worse now. We have a good system here but are small population wise with few insurers. I am with AA at the moment and they do not cover my bikes as a group so i have to insure separately. You can bet compulsory insurance will suck big time.
Looks like its going to suck any way.

Now the NZ govt wants $1750 (£815) to tax my bikes plus $950 (£414) in insurance. I'd rather be in the UK - at least you get a no claims discount.

[DogBreath]

All vehicles on the road buy mileage like Diesels do?

Yup, something like that.
And why the hell can't the graduated license be HP (or kW) instead of cc, ffs. Damn stupid.
(sorry, OT there)

[swbarnett]

So can somebody explain to me rationaly WHY we shouldn't be paying higher levies?
Because it's a "NO FAULT" scheme. No one individual should be paying any more than another.

[Winston001]

Because it's a "NO FAULT" scheme. No one individual should be paying any more than another.

The "no fault" relates to the cause of the accident leading to a claim. No faffing around trying to find someone else to blame for personal injury - which is the system in the USA.

ACC levies vary wildly from one individual to another. Check out the levy for an office worker vs a shearer, or a builder, or a forestry worker.

[Highlander]

Now the NZ govt wants $1750 (£815) to tax my bikes plus $950 (£414) in insurance. I'd rather be in the UK - at least you get a no claims discount.

Actually it is entirely up to you weather or not to insure your bikes. If you do, the Govt only wants the GST portion of your insurance bill.

[Winston001]

What bothers me is I suspect sports injuries drain ACC at a high rate but there is no levy attached. While I was in hospital two other patients arrived, both snowboard injuries and both fairly serious. But no direct ACC charge on them.

The trouble is I don't see how any government could impose levies on sport. How would it be assessed? Collected? A group of school kids decide to have a quick game of rugby and someone's teeth get knocked out. No team, no club, just kids.

[HTFU]

This came out at the start of the year (who knows how accurate the stats ACC gathers are).

"Last year, 51 people were killed on motorcycles and two people died on mopeds.

ACC paid out $64 million to 1395 motorcycle and scooter accident victims during 2008, $8 million more than in 2007.

More than 230 people were injured last year on mopeds."

I thought there would have been more scooter accidents in relation to motorcycle and even though ACC is lumping them together, scooters are only 10.5 million of the 64 million paid out to motorbike accidents.

There goes my submission arguing that it is the untrained-car licensed-scooter riders that are making us licensed bike riders look bad.

Be interesting to see the number of Kiwibikers who made a claim last year as a bike statistic and contributed to the 64 million and what % of those claims were the riders fault or that of another party. (poll time)

[The Stranger]

I see everyone's all up in arms about this, and I can see why. Massive increases are hard to swallow, it hurts. But it's really simple maths. (Fuck this is going to make me unpopular)

ACC is running at a HUGE deficite. Massive. Something has to be done, a number of changes have been suggested by the government.

They've obviously worked out motorcycles cost more to rehabilitate and suffer worse injuries than other road users. And riders of bigger bikes suffer more than riders of small bikes.

So can somebody explain to me rationaly WHY we shouldn't be paying higher levies?

I'm also beginning to think riders of race bikes and dirt bikes should have to pay a levy for each visit to the track or trail. This could potentially lower the road bikes rates at the same time.

I must say, always the cool head there Jimmy. You should be in politics.

I'll try.
For a start we are the only group outside of industry that is singled out for special treatment. ACC was no fault. Sure you have used ACC, as has many a rugby player, are they lining up to pay? So lets have some consistency here, it's user pays or it's no fault.

If I smoke I pay huge tax to the govt. Not sure of the figures, but that was a move taken over many years toward user pays. Fair enough we say, if I kill myself with smoke then why shouldn't I pay for my health care, it's my choice after all.

In our case frequently enough someone else kills us - and we pay. It's inequitable. The cagers should be subsidising us for their share of the carnage.

So if it's no fault then make it no fault, if it is a fault system then make it so, leave the costs on the cagers to cover their 50% (round figures).


Another issue stems from the way ACC is set up.
If I go and rip down a mountain side on a bicycle and head butt a tree, that's not a problem. Why should it be, we have a no fault system and the govt sees this as all dandy because I was partaking in a recreational activity.

I don't go flying down mountains on bicycles for recreation, but i do ride a motorcycle for recreation. Much - if not most of my motorcycle riding is for recreation. If I bin it on a recreational ride, well guess what. That is very bad, evil infact. Now how does this differ to the bicyclist? None, why aren't I funded from the recreational fund? Just because i choose the road for my recreation I am discriminated against.

Motorcyclsts are unique in using the road for recreation (OK not entirely, but none others use it to anywhere near the same degree) Why isn't our recreation funded from the recreation fund? That's where a huge portion of the cost properly lies.


Yet another issue is this. I have 2 bikes and a car. I only ever ride one or drive the car. Now ok, if we are going to have consumer pays, make it consumer pays across the board AND user pays once. Again, it is inequitable to have some users paying once and some paying 3 times - that's not user pays, it's user pays and pays and pays.

[The Stranger]

So what do we do?

Change the attitude of the politicians.
Young guys and chicks love bikes.
Get their kids involved in riding and see their attitudes change quick smart.

[howdamnhard]

So what do we do? One option would be to make insurance compulsary, then charge the acc levie on your insurance based on your previous history.

Agreed , that would be a more fair system.

[howdamnhard]

I must say, always the cool head there Jimmy. You should be in politics.

I'll try.
For a start we are the only group outside of industry that is singled out for special treatment. ACC was no fault. Sure you have used ACC, as has many a rugby player, are they lining up to pay? So lets have some consistency here, it's user pays or it's no fault.

If I smoke I pay huge tax to the govt. Not sure of the figures, but that was a move taken over many years toward user pays. Fair enough we say, if I kill myself with smoke then why shouldn't I pay for my health care, it's my choice after all.

In our case frequently enough someone else kills us - and we pay. It's inequitable. The cagers should be subsidising us for their share of the carnage.

So if it's no fault then make it no fault, if it is a fault system then make it so, leave the costs on the cagers to cover their 50% (round figures).


Another issue stems from the way ACC is set up.
If I go and rip down a mountain side on a bicycle and head butt a tree, that's not a problem. Why should it be, we have a no fault system and the govt sees this as all dandy because I was partaking in a recreational activity.

I don't go flying down mountains on bicycles for recreation, but i do ride a motorcycle for recreation. Much - if not most of my motorcycle riding is for recreation. If I bin it on a recreational ride, well guess what. That is very bad, evil infact. Now how does this differ to the bicyclist? None, why aren't I funded from the recreational fund? Just because i choose the road for my recreation I am discriminated against.

Motorcyclsts are unique in using the road for recreation (OK not entirely, but none others use it to anywhere near the same degree) Why isn't our recreation funded from the recreation fund? That's where a huge portion of the cost properly lies.


Yet another issue is this. I have 2 bikes and a car. I only ever ride one or drive the car. Now ok, if we are going to have consumer pays, make it consumer pays across the board AND user pays once. Again, it is inequitable to have some users paying once and some paying 3 times - that's not user pays, it's user pays and pays and pays.

Excellent points made Stranger , I totally agree.

[arris]

I know they need to recover costs, but lets face it how many people ride drunk? how may boy Riders do we really see. how many bikes are ridden into crowds of people. How about we increase your ACC if you have a conviction for speeding, drink driving or a boy racer charge. How many "police" cars do u turns in front of bikes
- 2 bikers in rehab at what cost bet that went down as a bike accident in the stats too.

Why pick on bikes? its easy and the 70% of car drivers just dont get it so they agree, bikes = bad = cost so they think ok well its not affecting my car so i dont care.

A better fairer system is needed but government wont do jack shit because they know that 70% of driver are just glad its not them.

Protest may do something but we needed to show the media and hence the government we do care and we do count. I know of a bike collector who is looking and around 15k a year now, that sucks.

FTG - Screw ACC -- Tax Cut FAIL - VOte National get screwed - ACC Sale in 2010 start saving now

[Pussy]

IF extra funding is really required (it probably is), it should be taken across the board.
BUT motorcyclists as a whole can really help the cause by displaying to the "general public" a degree of responsibility. It's a fact that a few show-boaters have given the impression that ALL motorcyclists are idiots, and we're getting what we deserve. Think about it

[monkeymcbean]

Make 3rd party insurance complusory for all road users, this will add to the coffers tin, you imagine the extra cash this would bring in

[cs363]

Agreed , that would be a more fair system.

No, that idea still penalises owners of more than one bike. The levy should be for the person, not the vehicle.

[MSTRS]

Make 3rd party insurance complusory for all road users, this will add to the coffers tin, you imagine the extra cash this would bring in

What's 3rd party cover got to do with personal injury? Know what you are talking about before you comment...

[Reckless]

What's 3rd party cover got to do with personal injury? Know what you are talking about before you comment...

Agreed, isn't 3rd party cover per bike not on the person?? as well!
So you'd still pay more than once??

[MSTRS]

Agreed, isn't 3rd party cover per bike not on the person?? as well!
So you'd still pay more than once??

3rd party cover is on a particular vehicle, to cover damage to any other vehicle.
I agree that it still sucks that you'd pay per vehicle owned, yet can only operate one at a time.

[monkeymcbean]

What's 3rd party cover got to do with personal injury? Know what you are talking about before you comment...

Nothing really, its just another example of how silly the system is in that im (who is insured) pays for someone else who has a vehicle that can be uninsured.
ACC seems to be heading that way to....in that it is not thought through enough, at this point.

[NinjaNanna]

What's 3rd party cover got to do with personal injury? Know what you are talking about before you comment...


Semantics mate and all depends on where you come from.

In Australia:
Third Party, only covers personal injury to a third party and it is compulsary

Third Party Property, covers a third parties property but not yours. it is not compulsary.



In Australia Third party is the poor cousin version of a privatised ACC.

[firefighter]

What a crock
Theyve not kept ONE fuckin election promise...

So they're thrashing Labours record then




He's counting on us begging them to privatize rather than pay the Levy's

Sounds good to me, I already pay into private medical insurance :2thumbsup

I have no need for GAYCC

[MSTRS]

Semantics mate and all depends on where you come from.



Yep. And Monkeymcbean comes from Queenstown, not Queensland :lol:

[dogsnbikes]

I see everyone's all up in arms about this, and I can see why. Massive increases are hard to swallow, it hurts. But it's really simple maths. (Fuck this is going to make me unpopular)

ACC is running at a HUGE deficite. Massive. Something has to be done, a number of changes have been suggested by the government.

They've obviously worked out motorcycles cost more to rehabilitate and suffer worse injuries than other road users. And riders of bigger bikes suffer more than riders of small bikes.

So can somebody explain to me rationaly WHY we shouldn't be paying higher levies?

I'm also beginning to think riders of race bikes and dirt bikes should have to pay a levy for each visit to the track or trail. This could potentially lower the road bikes rates at the same time. Nah your just created discussion,I wont mind paying more but I dont agree with how they have work it out,we do need to be a collective about it to get the right result for all


I agree with you in principle but many of us have more than one vehicle. Personally I have three registered vehilces. I don't see why the class of vehicle should attract the ACC levy. I have a license as do many others. I don't see why I can't be billed based on my license classes, base rate for the license plus $X for class 1, $X for class 6 so on and so forth. The method of delivery of this is screwed too, 126 - 600 cc costing $500 ? Sub 126 costing $250... this groups a GN250 with a GSXR600... bizarre....

If we are charged on per licence class the potenial for more unlicenced drivers/riders is there

what I would rather see is that we pay on a Kilowatt basis instead of a CC rating like the GN my CB250RS shouldn't be inclueded in the same class as and GSXR600 or R6 or my CBX750 in the same class as a ZX14 and so on

at the end of the day we will pay more, how much more and how fair it is to us as bikers will soley depend on how we unite and how we present our argument

[Drunken Monkey]

...
what I would rather see is that we pay on a Kilowatt basis instead of ...

Bah, piffle. Just like the people who keep pointing the finger at sports injuries.

If ACC is truly no fault, the only fair answer is a small and even increase to all ACC income sources, including earner payments, employer premiums and ALL Road users - not stinging single points.

If you want to sting 'stand out' users, we might as well chuck the whole system and start litigating US style.

[NighthawkNZ]

First thing the core issue "No fault"... Do we want a true no fault system, no blame etc... if we do then we need to make a no fault and it should not ever matter what you drive, ride, play sport, or what ever as long as we all put in an equal share... this price hike is a finger point and goes against a no fault system and is ponting the finger... This is how ACC and what it was orginally designed for.

If we have this I will stop complaining about the stupid thing people do and get ACC if they stop complaining about me riding a motorcycle... We all pay an even share... no fault no blame

Or

Do we want to go back to a blame you i fucked up, I pay system... suing and the only people that get ricjh is the lawyers

Or

A part no fault and part blame... which is where we are at now (as technically ACC is still no fault on the fron cover) and we just lump it and take it on the chin... This is where I will complain about car surfers, and idiots on the road blah blah blah cars hitting pedistrians, not looking

[Mikkel]

How can it be considered reasonable that one has to pay extra for ACC cover as a participant at a motorsports event - but not as, let's say, a participant at a rugby match, downhill skiing competition, mountain bike race or pub quiz?

If some recreational activities are exempt why then aren't others? Surely it can not come down to the risks involved because then you'd be paying more for the mountain bike race than for the bucket race.

A substantial ACC levy increase will only palatable insofar the entire levy collection model is sound and reasonable, which it is not.

[NinjaNanna]

can somebody please inform me as to the intended meaning of "no fault" as it pertains to ACC.

It seems to be a few different understandings are floating around.

BTW I'm not asking what you think the mean should be but the actual meaning of the phrase

[marioc]

Just another way of recouping the old tax cuts

[howdamnhard]

So who is the national representative of motorcyclists in N.Z. ? As has been said we are the minority and if we are to stand any chance we need to present a smart , informed united front.
We need access to all the information as to how the " government " has come up with this decision. So that it can be checked for accuracy and any flaws highlighted.We need accurate statistics of just how many accidents involved cars being at fault so that cars can bare their fair share of increases. The present idea seems to penalise and unfairly lay all the blame at the bikers feet(yes we are not totally blameless but neither are they).

We need workable alternative solutions. They have to be easy enough to apply as Mr Beaurocrat is lazy .
We will probably all end up paying more, but if we can make it fairer to all that would be good.
Many have come up with good points and ideas.1) Such as levies based on the individuals risk and past history(like insurance does) instead of how many vehicles that person owns.(best idea) ,2) On power output as opposed to cc rating( if they must charge each vehicle), etc.
We need a representative that is recognised by the government who can get all the required info together and come up with a plausible argument and a workable solution. We as the general biking community can support this representative body by providing the info, arguments and ideas and most most important of all ,backing.
I want fight this , I don't mind paying more but I beleive in fairness. Who is our national representative so that I can support them in fighting this decision before we are all priced off the road ?

[Tunahunter]

This sums it up

http://www.customink.com/designs/aidna/14730260-3166230/hotlink?cm_ven=hotlink&cm_cat=1&cm_pla=Body_img&cm_ite=designfront

[Brian d marge]

I see everyone's all up in arms about this, and I can see why. Massive increases are hard to swallow, it hurts. But it's really simple maths. (Fuck this is going to make me unpopular)

ACC is running at a HUGE deficite. Massive. Something has to be done, a number of changes have been suggested by the government.

They've obviously worked out motorcycles cost more to rehabilitate and suffer worse injuries than other road users. And riders of bigger bikes suffer more than riders of small bikes.

So can somebody explain to me rationaly WHY we shouldn't be paying higher levies?

I'm also beginning to think riders of race bikes and dirt bikes should have to pay a levy for each visit to the track or trail. This could potentially lower the road bikes rates at the same time.
Its the spin put on by national

we don't know how much it is there is a figure of 9 billion BUT they have made a profit this year and are looking good for next year ( so thats why people are asking for a break down of the costs)

Jk openly stated they will privatize ACC and they are doing it

Stephen

[dogsnbikes]

Bah, piffle. Just like the people who keep pointing the finger at sports injuries.
.

Not at all......why should people be hit hard on CC rating when they dont all give the same power output...
for example is it fair that someone with a bike that only has 60hp pay the same as me for my triumph that has 147hp even if both bikes are over a stated CC rating

[Drunken Monkey]

for example is it fair that someone with a bike that only has 60hp pay the same as me for my triumph that has 147hp even if both bikes are over a stated CC rating

Yes, in a supposed non-fault system like ACC, that is completely fair.

[MacD]

As I understand it, ACC's problems are largely paper based.

Investments have tanked leading up to and during the recesssion leading to a massive defecit, on paper.

The thing is, these investments are long term, they are not intended for paying the current claims, they are for future claims.

Investments will recover over time, the economy is already turning around in my opinion faster than most people expected, this was a pretty brief recession is you ask me.


Yes, what Nick Smith keeps calling a loss is actually just an increase the gap between current assets and predicted liabilities.

This gap has arisen mainly for two reasons:
1. the global recession reducing the current value of investments. However this is likley to be a relatively short term problem (years to decades).

2. the move to a fully-funded system from a pay-as-you-go system, which is how ACC historically operated. Under a PAYG system, funds collected within a year are used to pay for costs associated with that year. In a fully funded system funds collected within a year must meet all future costs of liabilites that arise within that year.

This change is a purely political decision and arguably has been made as a precurser to privatisation, partial or otherwise, of ACC as it is the basis on which private insurance companies operate.



I believe that National is using this for political mileage, the huge increases are just not justified except so that they can say in a couple years "hey look how great we are, we saved ACC", instead of smaller increase and a modest 10 years while the investments recover.

ACC costs have been increasing, just as other medical costs have been increasing. People expect much higher levels of medical intervention and rehabilitation support than even a decade ago.

Rather than just raising prices for cover and reducing coverage, a more important debate is whether a no fault system such as ACC should move to a fully-funded model or not.

Rod Orams's article (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/business/2262350/Rod-Oram-ACC-the-political-claims-and-the-reality) quoted above (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1129457332&postcount=48) summarises quite nicely the scaremongering that Nick Smith is indulging in regarding ACC:

[cs363]

Yes, in a supposed non-fault system like ACC, that is completely fair.

What isn't fair is having to pay multiple levies for a number of vehicles that one might own. The levy should be applied to the person, not the vehicle.

I could probably live with paying $700 or $800 a year for medical cover for accidents if it was applied like that. I just don't see why owners of multiple vehicles should be penalised compared to single vehicle owners, when it is patently obvious that you cannot use all vehicles simultaneously.

[Highlander]

What isn't fair is having to pay multiple levies for a number of vehicles that one might own. The levy should be applied to the person, not the vehicle.

I could probably live with paying $700 or $800 a year for medical cover for accidents if it was applied like that. I just don't see why owners of multiple vehicles should be penalised compared to single vehicle owners, when it is patently obvious that you cannot use all vehicles simultaneously.

When I write my letter to my MP and Nack Smith and Mr Key, I intend to suggest a mileage based system similar to the road user charges paid for Diesels. That is the only way I can think of that how much you pay is determined by how much you use the road.

Still does nothing to close the gap between registered road users and un registered ones (eg cyclists) though.

[Rayray401]

Meh, the nature of ACC is fine. but govt just doesnt know how to manage it. if you start making NZers actually saving for their own retirement, and cut superannuation by 50%, problem solved. Yet they are wondering why the young smart ones are leaving NZ, because NZ old people benefits are great, so NZers dont need to save for their own retirement. Govt funds heaps into stuff like pension, retirement funds, superannuation, old people get free money from what they havnt worked for when they were younger. ACC being in deficit is not surprising (because of this no fault system), but the govt is simply allocating the wrong amount of resources to wrong places. If the govt starts decreasing superannuation expenses, sure the old people will cry and bitch about it, but it will work more of an incentive for people to actually save when they start working, and not just retire at 65 with nothing and eat off the govt.

[Genestho]

can somebody please inform me as to the intended meaning of "no fault" as it pertains to ACC.

It seems to be a few different understandings are floating around.

BTW I'm not asking what you think the mean should be but the actual meaning of the phrase

What does 'no fault' mean? From ACC's FAQ's (http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/media-centre/frequently-asked-questions/ABA00105#P7_896)

‘No fault’ means that no matter what you were doing when you were injured – whether your actions caused the injury, or were illegal or dangerous – you will be covered by ACC, so long as the injury falls within the parameters of ACC’s legislation.

[rok-the-boat]

I see everyone's all up in arms about this, and I can see why. Massive increases are hard to swallow, it hurts. But it's really simple maths. (Fuck this is going to make me unpopular)

ACC is running at a HUGE deficite. Massive. Something has to be done, a number of changes have been suggested by the government.

They've obviously worked out motorcycles cost more to rehabilitate and suffer worse injuries than other road users. And riders of bigger bikes suffer more than riders of small bikes.

So can somebody explain to me rationaly WHY we shouldn't be paying higher levies?


Why? I saw some stats somewhere - from the USA - that showed most motorcycle accidents are caused by cars. If cars cause the accidents, they should be paying, not motorcycles. Also, more people need to be persuaded to get on bikes - they are cheaper, more efficient etc. Also, my bike is insured, therefore, I should pay less of a fee anyway. Finally, the reason ACC are in deep dodahs is because of their own mismanagement - they need to sort themselves out and become more efficient. Stop putting ads in newspapers and printing lavish brochures - we need none of that.

[Katman]

I saw some stats somewhere - from the USA - that showed most motorcycle accidents are caused by cars.


That is a myth perpetuated by motorcyclists in an attempt to disguise the stink emanating from their shit.

[gizmo]

Off-road bikes, Motor-cross bikes, farm bikes and the like are all classed as motorcycles. When a rider of one of the bikes has an accident, then it is classed as a motorcycle accident.
As these bike do not require registration they do not pay ACC. The only way that the government can get money back for "motorcyle" accidents is to up the ACC levies on Registration of road bikes.:Oi:

WHERE IS THIS FAIR.:headbang:

The only real solution that I have is that we re-new our licences yearly and ACC is payed on your licence.
This would bring in more income as there would be more people as those without a car or bike would still pay ACC as they do drive.
Also people with a bad driving record, accident etc would pay more for there levies. Thususer pays.

National had better sort it out other wise:girlfight:

[mossy1200]

I see everyone's all up in arms about this, and I can see why. Massive increases are hard to swallow, it hurts. But it's really simple maths. (Fuck this is going to make me unpopular)

ACC is running at a HUGE deficite. Massive. Something has to be done, a number of changes have been suggested by the government.

They've obviously worked out motorcycles cost more to rehabilitate and suffer worse injuries than other road users. And riders of bigger bikes suffer more than riders of small bikes.

So can somebody explain to me rationaly WHY we shouldn't be paying higher levies?

I'm also beginning to think riders of race bikes and dirt bikes should have to pay a levy for each visit to the track or trail. This could potentially lower the road bikes rates at the same time.
I see where your coming from BUT

Im going to start a motorbike GANG and were going to be BAD ASSES and ASSESESS and we are going to get patches unless we are in Wanganui and then we will be secret squirrel like fight club.
Together in huge bad asses and assesess groups we will ride around unregistered.we will be so bad that honda riders will have to ride without helmets to prove they arnt ghey.

:headbang:

[cs363]

Off-road bikes, Motor-cross bikes, farm bikes and the like are all classed as motorcycles.

Umm, actually no they aren't (which surprised me!) see here:

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/20-sport-claims/IS0800367

That said though, I have no doubt that many ACC claims are incorrectly filed in the correct category. Interesting that they have an ATV category and a trail riding/motocross category but theres no mention of farm bikes (2 wheelers), wonder what they get classified as?
Also, wondering if the scooter category is motor scooters or those stupid things with the skateboard wheels that were all the rage a while back?

[Tink]

To me its a typical thing... the guy that stuffs up pays.. but also the guy that doesn't... and from some comments here... those that don't ride on the road... DON'T pay road tax... so the govt needs to categorize more than they do. I have a 4x4 $40k and a bike now.... never had a accident in 25 years thats been my fault or that I have required ACC... I have a 60% no claims on my insurance... and now I want to take on a hobbie I am required to pay more...

time for more employment of logistic management..... those that fail pay!!!

[liljegren]

Here's a laugh- go ride your non-registered, non-warranted bike into a tree at an illegal speed, and you are still covered by ACC! How does that work?:clap:

[StoneY]

I'll try.


And succeeded mate well written


Excellent points made Stranger , I totally agree.

Concur


No, that idea still penalises owners of more than one bike. The levy should be for the person, not the vehicle.

Exactly
Ive advocated for a individual based levy for a long time

[kwaka_crasher]

ACC is running at a HUGE deficite. Massive. Something has to be done, a number of changes have been suggested by the government.

I don't believe it is as bad as that - it's largely a projected deficit driven by Labours legislation change in 2007 to make ACC "fully funded" by 2014. Given projections of the past (the carbon credit bullshit where we went from a significant credit to a huge deficit) do you put much credence on this projection? In all likelyhood it'll be the same pricks doing it...


They've obviously worked out motorcycles cost more to rehabilitate and suffer worse injuries than other road users.

Yes. We're undercharged by $70 each according to them. So why the $529 increase?


And riders of bigger bikes suffer more than riders of small bikes.

No. "Large" (700cc+) bike riders account for 32% of injuries and 50% of deaths. Source: Ministry of Transport - Motorcycle Crash Factsheet (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf)


So can somebody explain to me rationaly WHY we shouldn't be paying higher levies?

Sure. It's claimed to be a no-fault insurance scheme. Seems like they're apportioning fault (they even mention 'culpability' in their justification) but only to (and within) one group - motorcyclists. Where are the extortionate levies for the Volvo driving pensioners with hats?


I'm also beginning to think riders of race bikes and dirt bikes should have to pay a levy for each visit to the track or trail. This could potentially lower the road bikes rates at the same time.

Abso-fucking-lutely. As should cyclists (levy their spandex), donkey drivers (levy their jodhpurs), rugby boofheads (levy their boots), home handyclown (levy their tools), joggers (levy their shoes), lawn bowlers (levy their blue rinse) etc etc. Someone's carrying all those fuckers. Probably motorcyclists.

[terbang]

One of my bikes hasn't seen a rego in 5 years, I just keep putting it on hold, though I get warrants. And I still ride it a lot, only picking up one ticket for no rego. That cost me $200, so not too bad for 5 years...

[DIN PELENDA]

Why? I saw some stats somewhere - from the USA - that showed most motorcycle accidents are caused by cars. .


That is a myth perpetuated by motorcyclists in an attempt to disguise the stink emanating from their shit.

Maybe not most, but I know lot of bikers my self included that got hit by cars. The only major accident I have got T bone by Chinese women driving mini-bus and talking on mike 7 years-ego and she fuck' my Ducati :( . Some of KB's: DMTD on roundabout he is still fuckt from it and his Ducati 1098 , GSXR Trace -Truck on motor-way decide to change line and didn't see her,TL1000R and his M109, DidJit - hit and run , Carver on bridge - maybe not ... or how abouth cop doing u turn, or that charity bike ride in South Island as car try to pass another car and have head on with over 20 bikes, killing 3 and injuring 19.

[Dafe]

I've made 6 ACC claims for Rugby.
I've made 3 ACC claims for Indoor Soccer
I've made 0 ACC claims for motorcycling.

The huge increase to motorcyclists will be aiding the massive number of non-ACC levied sporting claims that are made every year.
Someone has to pay for the sporting claims, Why not the motorcyclists!!!

I get your point White Trash, but the increases put on motorcycle riders is unjustified when you consider the proportionality of non ACC levied claims made.

[brendonjw]

What isn't fair is having to pay multiple levies for a number of vehicles that one might own. The levy should be applied to the person, not the vehicle.

I could probably live with paying $700 or $800 a year for medical cover for accidents if it was applied like that. I just don't see why owners of multiple vehicles should be penalised compared to single vehicle owners, when it is patently obvious that you cannot use all vehicles simultaneously.

Although i fully agree with this model it would be too easy to cheat the system, a family could have 3+ vehicles yet they could all be under 1 parents name so dad, mum and the kids could all be driving round at the same time yet only have to pay for one of them...

[White trash]

Yes. We're undercharged by $70 each according to them. So why the $529 increase?



Nope, got your wires crossed here mate, what is reportedly happening is that every car registration is currently subsidizing motorcyclists ACC claims by $70 each, that's quite different

I got to say, thanks for all the valid and reasoned argument put forward, restores my faith in KBers being more than a bunch of abusive arseholes graced with a keyboard.

For the record, I am as opposed to this ludicrous hike in rates as anyone else, it's just a nice change to see people actually having a range of different possible solutions rather than threads titled "Burn parliment" and "we need a good old fashioned lynching" that KB is so famous for.

[White trash]

That is a myth perpetuated by motorcyclists in an attempt to disguise the stink emanating from their shit.
Once again, I agree almost completely.

Every accident I've had on a bike was to some degree, my own fault. That includes the two big ones involving other vehicles. Had I not been speeding, or paid slightly more attention, I would have avoided the twits driving the cars without due care.

[Sanx]

Burn Parliament.
We need a good old fashioned lynching.

[Cynos]

I see everyone's all up in arms about this, and I can see why. Massive increases are hard to swallow, it hurts. But it's really simple maths. (Fuck this is going to make me unpopular)

ACC is running at a HUGE deficite. Massive. Something has to be done, a number of changes have been suggested by the government.

They've obviously worked out motorcycles cost more to rehabilitate and suffer worse injuries than other road users. And riders of bigger bikes suffer more than riders of small bikes.

So can somebody explain to me rationaly WHY we shouldn't be paying higher levies?

I'm also beginning to think riders of race bikes and dirt bikes should have to pay a levy for each visit to the track or trail. This could potentially lower the road bikes rates at the same time.

I'm probably repeating something said a million times...

Yes, there is cross-subsidization. But then the fuel taxes motorcyclists pay cross-subsidize the wear and tear caused by heavier road users. My motorcycle uses say, half the fuel that my car does, but weighs about 1/10th. Likewise, we all subsidize bicycle users and rugby players. We subsidize foreigners who injure themselves here.

It goes on, far beyond ACC. I have a job, but I subsidize people without jobs via the benefit system. I live in Christchurch, but I subsidize roading in Invercargill and power lines in Auckland, and you guys subsidise our television transmitters. I don't overeat, but I subsidise the heart disease of people who do. It's our society, we all live in it, and we all support each other via the apparatus of government at some point or another. If you want to remove cross-subsidization then remove it all. If you want to go user pays, then do it properly. Not just "some users pay".

Also, the rating system used buy ACC is retarded. My 250 puts out more power than a KLR 650, yet the KLR owner would have to pay more ACC. It's like power divided by weight is too hard for ACC to work out. So no. We're not barking up the wrong tree.

[White trash]

Burn Parliament.
We need a good old fashioned lynching.
God you're a fucken arsehole.

[kwaka_crasher]

Nope, got your wires crossed here mate, what is reportedly happening is that every car registration is currently subsidizing motorcyclists ACC claims by $70 each, that's quite different.

Right you are, if their line is to be followed.

However, the figures available do not neccesarily stack up to this. Where are the figures for annual cost to ACC of injurys to motorcyclists where primary responsibility for the crash was identified to lie with the motorcyclist? They simply don't exist. What we have is a blanket $XXM for all claims for motorcyclists and $XXM collected in levies from motorcycle licences. We have no way of determining culpability with the statistics they're giving.

Statements being made like "motorcyclists are 16x more likely to crash" are throw away claims deliberately over-simplified to be easily swallowed by the mindless minions who conclude that motorcyclists should be paying 16x as much, despite no actual correlation to cost.

[cs363]

Although i fully agree with this model it would be too easy to cheat the system, a family could have 3+ vehicles yet they could all be under 1 parents name so dad, mum and the kids could all be driving round at the same time yet only have to pay for one of them...

Not if the levy was linked to the drivers licence. That way, you drive or ride - you pay. The problem with the current system is it's linked to vehicle registration which often has no bearing on who actually drives the vehicle.

[Blackflagged]

Can`t believe ,the people on here defending Huge rate increases!Butt kissers!I knew something was up,when they started saying 70% of accident are cause by motorcycles.That`s not been my experience,2 colision in 25yrs,both times the car came from a hiden from view postion,and just didn`t look.I wonder if people who walk to work,should pay more acc,when some loon runs people over on the foot path,or outside a party!I`ve drive cars ,trucks, motorbikes.And in general car drives are of,the lowest standard(Largest voting BlocK).Your average Truck driver is alot better.But thats not statistic`s, that seat of the pants experience.Anyway,whoever causes the accident should pay more!!

[White trash]

Can`t believe ,the people on here defending Huge rate increases!Butt kissers!I knew something was up,when they started saying 70% of accident are cause by motorcycles.That`s not been my experience,2 colision in 25yrs,both times the car came from a hiden from view postion,and just didn`t look.I wonder if people who walk to work,should pay more acc,when some loon runs people over on the foot path,or outside a party!I`ve drive cars ,trucks, motorbikes.And in general car drives are of,the lowest standard(Largest voting BlocK).Your average Truck driver is alot better.But thats not statistic`s, that seat of the pants experience.Anyway,whoever causes the accident should pay more!!
Ummmm, where are these bastards defending huge rate increases?

[cs363]

Ummmm, where are these bastards defending huge rate increases?

Be fair, he said Butt Kissers.

The thread for people born out of wedlock and defending huge rate increases can be found elsewhere, using the search facility.


:apint:

[Shiny side up]

hope no one minds me posting this here the other thread seems dead. Here are my thoughts that I am sending via the local MP. If anyone can add some accurate stats to it it would be helpful

To load the cost of ACC levies on to motorcycle registration is a serious injustice as it fails to recognise 3 man points. The proportion of injuries sustained on unregistered off road bikes, the number of injuries cased to riders by other road users or poor road design and the tax contribution registered motorcycles already make compared to the roading resources they use.

Huge numbers of motorcycles are not registered, usually because they are use solely off road. There does not seem to be any differentiation, by ACC, between injuries on registered and unregistered motorcycles. The probability of getting injured in a weekends off road riding is probably higher than the probability of injury for a year of road riding. Putting the ACC cost of motorcycle related injuries onto those that have a registered and “Warrant of Fitness” compliant motorcycle, is grossly unjust.

In my years of riding most of the accidents and near misses I have had have been caused by others. Car drivers failing to look and giving abuse when they are tooted at to bring their attention to the situation. Poor and dangerous design of elements around roads like cheese grater crash barriers and large painted areas, or inconsiderate roading contractors like the one that left black sand on the road after changing the road markings.
The fact that it is the motorcyclist that gets hurt by these situations, is not justification for making the motorcyclists pay. No other group of people are expected to pay a higher ACC levy based on the probability that they are going to be a victim of someone else’s stupidity, aggression, carelessness or thoughtlessness. If this mentality of making a victim pay the ACC cost is carried through then low visibility coloured cars should be more expensive to register and trucks should be cheaper. Truck drivers are seldom injured in accidents unlike the drivers of the cars they collide with.
Motorcyclist that are not careful are not motorcyclists for long and I have yet to hear of a motorcyclist crashing in to a car while texting or taking out a group of police cars while making a U turn.

Motorcycles are taxed at the same rate as cars in fuel tax, the registrations cost are similar and some cars use less fuel some bikes. Motorcycles use less roading resources than cars. Any given roadway can allow the passage of more motorcycles than cars in a given time. Bikes require less parking room than cars. Bike cause less wear in road surfaces than other vehicles. Yet bikes contribute a similar amount in fuel tax and registration to cars.
Making motorcyclist pay these huge registration costs will force many back into cars that will then join the traffic congestion and crawl along the roads with one person in them and demand that more motorways be built to accommodate them. Encouraging more people on to two wheels would be cheaper than building more and more roads and would make for drivers that were a lot more aware of the conditions around them.
If the ACC levy is to be increased because of a perceived expense to ACC then the roading tax should be reduced to reflect the lower road requirements resulting in the registration cost being unchanged.

[2wheeldrifter]

Why can't we be like Fuji..... and have a "coo de ta" every now and agian to keep the pollies on there toes lol

any members here in the army.... my need your jeep :) it comes with a gun?

[SPman]

Making motorcyclist pay these huge registration costs will force many back into cars that will then join the traffic congestion and crawl along the roads with one person in them and demand that more motorways be built to accommodate them
Aaaah, it's all a cunning plan......... that's when they hit everyone with a "congestion tax"!

Anyway, ACC isn’t losing money. Its revenues were $4.5 billion – $1.5 billion more than it spent on claims this year. $500 million of that extra is operating costs,the other $1 billion was added to ACC’s investments but changes to predictions of the future costs of current claims pushed out that target even further – by $5.7 billion. So, getting to being fully funded is $4.8 billion further away than it was before.

There’s no actual crisis. Despite Nick Smith’s hysterics over ‘increased costs’, the cost of new claims isn’t rising (steady at $1.7 billion for the last 2 years). ACC is making enough money. The ‘crisis’ is just modelling changes for a bookkeeping exercise that has no effect other than to make levies higher now so they won’t have to be as high later.

[gtyler]

Acc got 25% more in this year than they spent (according to TV1 news last night). the deficit is in their invertments and where they want to be with this. What you pay to Acc now pays for the injuries of past years included in this. what will they get in next year? more than 25% more than they spend next year. in 20 years time? probably similar. So, where is the real problem? let's campain for reduced Acc levies.

[svr]

So can somebody explain to me rationaly WHY we shouldn't be paying higher levies?


Its important to think of Politics as 99% power & 1% ethics. The ethics of ACC levies can be argued `rationally' from every conceivable angle to the full range of logical conclusions. This is about power: Road motorcyclists will get shafted if they let this pass without serious mobililisation as a united interest group.

[SPman]

let's campain for reduced Acc levies.
That was the whole idea of the exercise. Once the CA deficit is topped up, levies should then be in line to fall quite a bit.

[pete376403]

Taxes (levies) never fall, only go up. Any supposed tax cut is always offset by an increase in another tax.

[dipshit]

in 20 years time?

In 10 years time it should be self funding. That is, interest earned off the capital investments will cover claim payouts. Then ACC levies can be dramatically reduced.

Unless of course there is another financial crash and they lose their investments again. :crybaby:

[PrincessBandit]

In 10 years time it should be self funding. That is interest earned off the capital investments will cover claim payouts. Then ACC levies can be dramatically reduced.

Unless of course there is another financial crash and they lose their investments again.

Yep, so they'll fleece motorcyclists all over again. Oh no, wait, there won't be any more of us left by then....

[rustic101]

wants to put a submission into ACC, however on my blog thingy over there >>>>>> I put my one in and cc'd in; Dr Dick Nick SMITH and John KEY, the CE ACC, and the CE AA. I had an email back from JK's aide today thanking me for my well thought out submission.

Anyway feel free to do what ACC are about to and, rape and pillage my stuff, i.e copy and paste make sure you edit it after;)

Sam:2guns:

[Skyryder]

I see everyone's all up in arms about this, and I can see why. Massive increases are hard to swallow, it hurts. But it's really simple maths. (Fuck this is going to make me unpopular)

ACC is running at a HUGE deficite. Massive. Something has to be done, a number of changes have been suggested by the government.

They've obviously worked out motorcycles cost more to rehabilitate and suffer worse injuries than other road users. And riders of bigger bikes suffer more than riders of small bikes.

So can somebody explain to me rationaly WHY we shouldn't be paying higher levies?


It's all here

“Labour last year pledged to make the law change straight after the election, as it became clear that the global economic crisis was putting pressure on ACC.
“The PricewaterhouseCoopers report released by Dr Smith yesterday shows those pressures have continued to increase. The report shows $1.8 billion of the $2.5 billion increase in ACC’s liabilities over the last six months is due to the international economic slump,” David Parker said.
“This international situation is the primary reason for the increased pressures on the ACC levies – not “generous” entitlements as claimed.
“Dr Smith said yesterday the Government was now considering the law change proposed by Labour, yet used alarmist figures which ignored the substantial reduction of levy increases which can easily be achieved.
“This is the solution and what he now needs to do is to commit to doing it urgently so motorists don’t pay more than they need to in July,” said David Parker.
“Labour believes political parties need to unite to fight the common enemy which is the international recession. The law change would enable us to blunt the impact on the levy rates and Labour is willing to support the Government to ensure this happens.
“Last year ACC said the motor vehicle levy would need to be raised from $254 to $287 in the 09/10 financial year, which we found unacceptable. The information released yesterday says the changed economic situation means the July levy would now have to be increased to $376.48,” said David Parker.
“But PricewaterhouseCoopers said that if the law change was introduced just over $100 could be knocked off the levy. Dr Smith needs take this action now, instead of using alarmist figures in a blatant attempt to mislead New Zealanders into thinking fundamental entitlements for injured people must be slashed.”
From http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0903/S00076.htm

Price Waterhouse do not agree with Smiths figures. Pretty rational to me.


Skyryder

[What?]

What does 'no fault' mean? From ACC's FAQ's (http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/media-centre/frequently-asked-questions/ABA00105#P7_896)

‘No fault’ means that no matter what you were doing when you were injured – whether your actions caused the injury, or were illegal or dangerous – you will be covered by ACC, so long as the injury falls within the parameters of ACC’s legislation.

For the gummint to claim that ACC is No Fault is a little like you looking at the knife in your right hand and claiming that you don't use a fork to eat. ACC is an arm of said gummint, and that arm has no need to find fault; said gummint has other arms like the police farce and DOL to do that.

[CherryB]

Absolutely, why aren't we paying one motor vehicle ACC fee - we can only ride or drive one at a time, if you own ten vehicles (some mates do with mix of historic bikes, trail, adventure, road etc) why be discouraged from registering them because the ACC levies are so high a part of the cost, without true relativity. As the land transport folk have a list of all our registered vehicles it should be easy to charge the ACC levy only on one (the highest cost) of those.

[Ragingrob]

Absolutely, why aren't we paying one motor vehicle ACC fee - we can only ride or drive one at a time, if you own ten vehicles (some mates do with mix of historic bikes, trail, adventure, road etc) why be discouraged from registering them because the ACC levies are so high a part of the cost, without true relativity. As the land transport folk have a list of all our registered vehicles it should be easy to charge the ACC levy only on one (the highest cost) of those.

Here's where you register as a "dealer" and just transfer your yellow plate to whichever vehicle you may be using at the time :bleh:

[Winston001]

Absolutely, why aren't we paying one motor vehicle ACC fee - we can only ride or drive one at a time, if you own ten vehicles (some mates do with mix of historic bikes, trail, adventure, road etc) why be discouraged from registering them because the ACC levies are so high a part of the cost, without true relativity. As the land transport folk have a list of all our registered vehicles it should be easy to charge the ACC levy only on one (the highest cost) of those.

The logical alternative would be for every person who holds a drivers licence to pay an annual ACC and registration fee. Say $300.

However that would mean grannies and teenagers paying even though they might drive once a month, so politically can't see it being a winner.