An idea and a reply concerning ACC levies from Tauranga National MP [Archive]

View Full Version : An idea and a reply concerning ACC levies from Tauranga National MP

drummer

18th October 2009, 14:15

I replied to a thread in facebook regarding ACC levies.

This is Simon Bridges reply

This is an important and interesting debate.

Peter and Matt you obviously feel strongly about this. Remember the ACC Board's proposals are not set in stone yet, and you can make a submission - in fact I strongly encourage you to - at www.acc.co.nz/consultation. the submissions window closes 5pm 10 November.... Read more

I also think the figures regarding all of this are pretty powerful. ACC is losing billions at the moment. Regarding just motorcycles, ACC paid out more than $62m in the 2008/09 year and collected only $12.3m in motorcyclist levies. The maths in other words doesn't work well.

Note also that even with the ACC Board's proposed incresaes to motorcyclists, every other non-motorcyclist driver will be subsidising motorcyclists at a rate of $77 each.

Finally, the cost of injuries from a motorcycle crash are four times higher than for non motorcycle crashes. I am certainly not saying all or even most crashes involving motorcycles are motorcyclists fault, just that the facts and figures are pretty significant.

Cheers
Simon

OK... I have an idea... please try and corner your MP's into stating their postions... also branch chairman etc. The local branch chairman in Glendowie told me I sould "Ride a bicycle" if I didn't want to pay the fees. The elctorate chairman told me that the levies ere fair for bikes but in his opinion ACC should be privatised. This I stress was his as quoted "personal opinion". But what worries me is the complete misunderstanding of the subject.

We need to get groups going in all electorates to put extreme (legal) pressure on these National MP's who have never even seen a decent motorcycle let alone ridden one.

Personally I would rather have the Nats than labour any day... however the Nats are writing their own epitaph with this proposal...

Get those submissions in folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PM me if you want to chat. I am willing to assist in co-ordinating the protest... I have been involved with politics for 20plus years and can put a lot of pressure on people (legally.. and I stress that)

Peter Chatteris

Matt_TG

18th October 2009, 14:51

I've added you on FB mate :) Tony Ryall and Simon Bridges are usually in office on Friday, and I am looking for Friday off work due to other weekend commitments Fri and Sat night. Ironically my bike rego is on hold at the moment, but could look at borrowing someone's ....

Ixion

18th October 2009, 15:20

Finally, the cost of injuries from a motorcycle crash are four times higher than for non motorcycle crashes. I am certainly not saying all or even most crashes involving motorcycles are motorcyclists fault, just that the facts and figures are pretty significant.

Absolute nonsense.

According to ACCs own figures avergae cost of a car crash claim= $17,382

Ditto Rider/pillion motorcycle = $13,866

We cost them LESS not more.

Please disillusion the parliamentary gemtleman. Figures from here (http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/acc-injury-statistics-2008/8-motor-vehicle-account/is0800143)

Matt_TG

18th October 2009, 16:54

Thanks Ixion, will reply

jed4czar

18th October 2009, 19:19

"Finally, the cost of injuries from a motorcycle crash are four times higher than for non motorcycle crashes"
:Oi: - Heres the breakdown from Ixions link (Shamelessly copied from http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/debate-motor-cycle-accident-costs-needed/5/27442 )
In ACC's Injury Statistics 2008 report (http://tr.im/BV1k) ACC details claims against the Motor Vehicles account - the virtual pool that gets claimed upon whenever a road-registered vehicle is involved in an accident. The report gives statistics for the number of new claims, the number of active claims and the cost of those claims. As the report breaks down the claims by vehicle type, it's easy to compare the cost of claims:
Cyclists:
- 567 active claims
- $12,573,000
- $22,174 per claim
Pedestrians:
- 1115 active claims
- $24,494,000
- $21,967 per claim
Car Occupants:
- 8525 active claims
- $208,305,000
- $24,434 per claim
MOTORCYCLIST's
- 3173 active claims
- $62,523,000
- $19,704 per claim
These figures are from the motor vehicle pool, which is automatically used whenever a road-registered vehicle is involved in an accident. It doesn't cover instances such as a bunch of cyclists cyclists crashing into each other, or a cyclist running into a pedestrian on a zebra crossing. Nor does it cover accidents on race tracks, mountain-bikers on dirt trails or motocrossers smacking into tree.
So, according to ACC's own statistics, motorcyclists - per claim - actually have cheaper accidents than other groups. Probably because more of them get killed. Dead men don't require treatment - but the statements made about bikers having disproportionately more serious (by which is meant expensive) accidents is simply and demonstrably false.

Get this info out there - send to opposition MP's, Newspapers etc. We have the data to refute the misinformation being spread by an ideologically driven gobernment that seemed to have learned a lot from their predecessors i.e. they will drop it back to $500 and Joe Public will be so grateful and love them for it. Ironically enough this is the strategy Uncle Joe Stalin used!

Ixion

18th October 2009, 19:27

My figures were 2007, yours 2008. But both show the same thing, we cost less, not more.

I think it's because bike crashes often involve treatment for minor injury (bruises, grazes) whereas a car crash if you'r einjured at all it's often fairly bad.

Also a lot of bikers are students, they're cheap as chips to ACC cos they have bugger all income.

FJRider

18th October 2009, 19:28

"Finally, the cost of injuries from a motorcycle crash are four times higher than for non motorcycle crashes"
:Oi: - Heres the breakdown from Ixions link (Shamelessly copied from http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/debate-motor-cycle-accident-costs-needed/5/27442 )
In ACC's Injury Statistics 2008 report (http://tr.im/BV1k) ACC details claims against the Motor Vehicles account - the virtual pool that gets claimed upon whenever a road-registered vehicle is involved in an accident. The report gives statistics for the number of new claims, the number of active claims and the cost of those claims. As the report breaks down the claims by vehicle type, it's easy to compare the cost of claims:
Cyclists:
- 567 active claims
- $12,573,000
- $22,174 per claim
Pedestrians:
- 1115 active claims
- $24,494,000
- $21,967 per claim
Car Occupants:
- 8525 active claims
- $208,305,000
- $24,434 per claim
MOTORCYCLIST's
- 3173 active claims
- $62,523,000
- $19,704 per claim
These figures are from the motor vehicle pool, which is automatically used whenever a road-registered vehicle is involved in an accident. It doesn't cover instances such as a bunch of cyclists cyclists crashing into each other, or a cyclist running into a pedestrian on a zebra crossing. Nor does it cover accidents on race tracks, mountain-bikers on dirt trails or motocrossers smacking into tree.
So, according to ACC's own statistics, motorcyclists - per claim - actually have cheaper accidents than other groups. Probably because more of them get killed. Dead men don't require treatment - but the statements made about bikers having disproportionately more serious (by which is meant expensive) accidents is simply and demonstrably false.

You are starting to think for yourself. This is totally against current goverment policy. Please conform immediately...

pete376403

18th October 2009, 20:12

sent to my MP, borrowing from others input:
Dear Mr Hipkins,

As one of your constituents and also as a motorcyclist I would be interested to learn of your position with regard to the proposed ACC levy increases.

I am particularly disturbed that that both ACC and the Minister for ACC are repeatedly making and distributing misleading figures and sound-bites to justify the very large increases in ACC levies as they apply to motorcycles.

For example, the statement “motorcycles are 16 TIMES (my emphasis) more likely to be involved in an accident” is incorrect and the correct figure, ..16% more likely...” which I am sure you would agree, totally changes the context. This figure is from ACCs own website.

Another misleading (can I say blatant lie?) statement - “ motorcycle injuries cost 4 times more than car accidents” is shown to be incorrect.

In ACC's Injury Statistics 2008 report (http://tr.im/BV1k) ACC details claims against the Motor Vehicles account - the virtual pool that gets claimed upon whenever a road-registered vehicle is involved in an accident. The report gives statistics for the number of new claims, the number of active claims and the cost of those claims. As the report breaks down the claims by vehicle type, it's easy to compare the cost of claims:
Cyclists:
- 567 active claims
- $12,573,000
- $22,174 per claim
Pedestrians:
- 1115 active claims
- $24,494,000
- $21,967 per claim
Car Occupants:
- 8525 active claims
- $208,305,000
- $24,434 per claim
MOTORCYCLIST's
- 3173 active claims
- $62,523,000
- $19,704 per claim
These figures are from the motor vehicle pool, which is automatically used whenever a road-registered vehicle is involved in an accident. It doesn't cover instances such as a bunch of cyclists cyclists crashing into each other, or a cyclist running into a pedestrian on a zebra crossing. Nor does it cover accidents on race tracks, mountain-bikers on dirt trails or motocrossers smacking into tree.

So, according to ACC's own statistics, motorcyclists - per claim - actually have cheaper accidents than other groups. Probably because more of them get killed. Dead men don't require treatment - but the statements made about bikers having disproportionately more serious (by which is meant expensive) accidents is simply and demonstrably false.

ACC was established as a “no-fault” scheme. In many cases of motorcycle accident, the fault is because a car has failed to give way, or turned into the path of a motorcycle. By raising the levy to such a degree, motorcyclist are being penalised for being the victim of a criminal act.

I would appreciate your responses to the above statements

drummer

18th October 2009, 20:44

OK FOLKS THIS IS WHAT WE NEED.. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO JOIN THE PROTEST PLEASE ADD ME AS A FRIEJND ON FACEBOOK... PETER CHATTERIS.. oops sorry for the caps... should have saved it for the pollies

Skyryder

18th October 2009, 20:52

Clockwork

20th October 2009, 08:31

It occurs to me as earners we pay into the ACC Earner account differing amounts depending upon what we earn, presumably because high wage earners would be compensated more for lost income. Obviously non-earners would not get wages compensation, but who pays for their medical care - don't tell me the rest of the earners subsidise them because we all know how ACC feels it unreasonable for cross-subsidies of this nature to exist!

When a rider claims from a bike accident presumably the medical expenses are paid for from the Motor Vehicle Account, can anyone tell me if lost income is compensated from the wage Earners Account or does it also come from the Motor vehicle account?. Likewise, if a non rego paying passenger in a registered (or unregistered for that matter) vehicle needs compensation from a vehicle accident, what ACC account meets their costs, or to put it another way who's subsidising them?

I suspect that all claims originating from a vehicle accident will be funded entirely from the Motor Vehicle Account. As $62M seems an awful lot of money to spend on 1300 accidents, I'd like to know how much of that amount was spent on the 3100 "Active Claims" because we should bear in mind that we "current levy payers" are also expected to ante-up enough to pay for these pre-existing "Active" claims from former riders who almost certainly will never own or register a motorcycle again. And lets not forget that since the accounts are not yet fully funded, guess who's expected to pick up their share of that cost too!, If we stopped having accidents tomorrow they still want to levy us to pay off that! Surely asking only current riders to cross-subsidise the claims of former rider's is also unfair, if we all said "stuff this" and stopped riding bikes who would they get to pick up this cost then?

Finally, ACC is not broke! At this point in time, because of the world's investment economy, ACC's investments "appear" to be insufficient to meet the needs of "anticipated" long term claimants. But once the investment markets improve and the investments start to reflect their original values do you suppose these levy hikes will be reversed. Somehow I don't think so. Oh, and lets not forget that we're only part way through the conversion to a fully funded business model, so it's hardly surprising that there is a shortfall on this account, even if the worlds investment markets hadn't just shat themselves.

buellbabe

20th October 2009, 11:07

Pete! That is a fantastic letter.
We have GOT to get this information out there!

The general public is being deliberately mislead.

I will be "borrowing" some of the same facts and writing to my local MP as well and sending in a personal submission.

MSTRS

20th October 2009, 11:40

It occurs to me as earners we pay into the ACC Earner account differing amounts depending upon what we earn, presumably because high wage earners would be compensated more for lost income. Obviously non-earners would not get wages compensation, but who pays for their medical care - don't tell me the rest of the earners subsidise them because we all know how ACC feels it unreasonable for cross-subsidies of this nature to exist! Wage-based rates are dependent on the type of job. The amount you pay is $x per $100 earned. The x varies from one type of job to another, based on injury likelihoods gathering via stats.

When a rider claims from a bike accident presumably the medical expenses are paid for from the Motor Vehicle Account, can anyone tell me if lost income is compensated from the wage Earners Account or does it also come from the Motor vehicle account?. Likewise, if a non rego paying passenger in a registered (or unregistered for that matter) vehicle needs compensation from a vehicle accident, what ACC account meets their costs, or to put it another way who's subsidising them?
If an accident occurs on the road and a vehicle is involved, then that is the fund that pays. So, yes, rego-based levies cover the likes of pillions, passengers, pedestrians, cyclists etc, who pay nothing in. We can assume that a portion of them do,but are just not using their own vehicle...it gets very complex and impossible to work out. The fact is that all those who pay in, are subsidising the entire draw off from that fund.

I suspect that all claims originating from a vehicle accident will be funded entirely from the Motor Vehicle Account. As $62M seems an awful lot of money to spend on 1300 accidents, I'd like to know how much of that amount was spent on the 3100 "Active Claims" because we should bear in mind that we "current levy payers" are also expected to ante-up enough to pay for these pre-existing "Active" claims from former riders who almost certainly will never own or register a motorcycle again. And lets not forget that since the accounts are not yet fully funded, guess who's expected to pick up their share of that cost too!, If we stopped having accidents tomorrow they still want to levy us to pay off that! Surely asking only current riders to cross-subsidise the claims of former rider's is also unfair, if we all said "stuff this" and stopped riding bikes who would they get to pick up this cost then?
You suspect right. And that $62M (if true) is spend on all active claims. That means the 1336-odd injuries during 2008 Plus 1840-odd ongoing payments to those injured in previous years. What I don't know is if payments are for medical-type stuff, or whether they include earnings compensation too.

Finally, ACC is not broke! At this point in time, because of the world's investment economy, ACC's investments "appear" to be insufficient to meet the needs of "anticipated" long term claimants. But once the investment markets improve and the investments start to reflect their original values do you suppose these levy hikes will be reversed. Somehow I don't think so. Oh, and lets not forget that we're only part way through the conversion to a fully funded business model, so it's hardly surprising that there is a shortfall on this account, even if the worlds investment markets hadn't just shat themselves.
Absolutely right.

StoneY

20th October 2009, 12:06

OK FOLKS THIS IS WHAT WE NEED.. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO JOIN THE PROTEST PLEASE ADD ME AS A FRIEJND ON FACEBOOK... PETER CHATTERIS.. oops sorry for the caps... should have saved it for the pollies

Peter, please contact your regional BIKOI coordinator

United we stand, devided we fail

Cheers

Dodger

20th October 2009, 12:13

sent to my MP, borrowing from others

Oh please send that letter to TV1, TV3, campbell live etc.

NighthawkNZ

20th October 2009, 12:14

I replied to a thread in facebook regarding
I also think the figures regarding all of this are pretty powerful. ACC is losing billions at the moment. Regarding just motorcycles, ACC paid out more than $62m in the 2008/09 year and collected only $12.3m in motorcyclist levies. The maths in other words doesn't work well.

12.3m collected
(rego's only)
Mopeds: 25,304 levy $58.97. Total = $1,492,176.88.
Motorcyles: 71,648 levy $252.69. Total = $18,104,733.12
Total bikes: 96,952 total levy $19,596,910

What happen to the other $7,296,910

So all our ACC in PAYE, and all other Rego's (can only drive one vehicle at a time argement) and ACC in fuel doesn't count.

ACC have know what of know how much ACC is paid by bikers as a collective

Note also that even with the ACC Board's proposed incresaes to motorcyclists, every other non-motorcyclist driver will be subsidising motorcyclists at a rate of $77 each.

Short Fall

Now lets try it the other way which makes it look bad for bikers and good for government. Dr Smith said "Motorcyclists were 16 times more likely than car drivers to be involved in accidents yet car owners were currently subsidising their ACC bills by $77 each." The MOT Annual Vehicle Fleet Statistics for 2008 states there are 2,584,509 light passenger vehicles in New Zealand, light passenger vehicles are defined as cars and vans. [7] (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/NewZealandVehicleFleetStatistics/)
So here is the problem $77 x 2,584,509 = $199,007,193 which means car drivers are paying $149m more than the total ACC cost supposedly incurred by motorcyclists. Latests stats show the fleet at 2,788,938 so these number are $214,748,226

Using $42m Short Fall
"$42,926,090 short fall / 2,584,509 vehicles = $16.60"
Latests stats show the fleet at 2,788,938 so these number are: $15.40 [8] (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/2008/table-39.html)

Using $50m Short Fall
Using those same figures "$50,000,000 (even though it is 42m) short fall / 2,584,509 vehicles = $19.35"
Latests stats show the fleet at 2,788,938 so these number are $17.93 [9] (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/2008/table-39.html)
Every vehicle is subsiding motorcycles by $77 is a lie and a fabrication. First off these numbers were only using the cars and vans fleet, not counting 519,992 Goods vans/trucks/utilities, buses, motorcampers or any of the other road registered vehicle if we did include these vehicles our $16.60 would be a lot lower.
Is it any wounder the country struggles with its bank accounts. Maybe we need to spend more money on Education... oh a common theme I see forming.

Finally, the cost of injuries from a motorcycle crash are four times higher than for non motorcycle crashes. I am certainly not saying all or even most crashes involving motorcycles are motorcyclists fault, just that the facts and figures are pretty significant.

In ACC's Injury Statistics 2008 report
Cyclists:

567 active claims
ACC payout - $12,573,000
$22,175 per claim

Pedestrians:

1115 active claims
ACC payout - $24,494,000
$21,968 per claim

Car Occupants:

8525 active claims
ACC payout - $208,305,000
$24,435 per claim

MOTORCYCLIST's

3173 active claims
ACC payout - $62,523,000
$19,705 per claim

Don't you hate statistics

riffer

20th October 2009, 12:19

12.3m collected

Mopeds: 25,304 levy $58.97. Total = $1,492,176.88.
Motorcyles: 71,648 levy $252.69. Total = $18,104,733.12
Total bikes: 96,952 total levy $19,596,910 (rego's only)

What happen to the other $7,296,910

You are assuming all the motorcycles are registered for the entire year.

This is patently not the case. Many motorcyclists are only registering their bike for a certain part of the year and putting the rego on hold for a large proportion of it.

Something that will only get worse if these proposals go ahead.

Ixion

20th October 2009, 12:21

..

You suspect right. And that $62M (if true) is spend on all active claims. That means the 1336-odd injuries during 2008 Plus 1840-odd ongoing payments to those injured in previous years. What I don't know is if payments are for medical-type stuff, or whether they include earnings compensation too.

Absolutely right.

The important thing is that the 1840 pre 2008 claims have already been fully funded in the year they occur. The do not need to be paid for from 2008 income. So the 12 million (noting the $7m that has disappeared) does NOT have to cover the whole 62M in claims. Only the present and future costs of the 2008 claims. Which ACC are totally silent about.

riffer

20th October 2009, 12:31

Yeah but even if you only register it for 3 months it's still a registered bike.

Capiche?

jed4czar

20th October 2009, 13:04

Reply from Nicki Kaye MP for Akld Central and further correspondence - For all your info.

Thank you for you reply Nicki.

How can we have a "no fault accident insurance programme" and yet attribute liability for costs??? This is oxymoronic in my opinion.

Pedestrians and Cyclists claimed $37,067,000 in 2008 for road related accidents and they pay nothing specifically for this towards ACC! This makes any "user pays" argument quite specious. Why are they, as victims of road accidents and road users, not also asked to pay towards their own care and recovery? How many of the 8525 motorcycle claims are from people that also own cars and pay their own "subsidy"? Most I would suggest, with some owning more than one car. If we as a community are bearing the financial burden for sports injuries and for those whom work is medically not possible, without attributing fault or asking them to increase their contributions due to their "choice" to play sport or engage in heavy manual work, then why would we suddenly decide that a relatively small sector of the community should bear all costs associated with their "choice" ?

Why are we having to bail out ACC from its own mismanagement - The > $500,000 salary of the CEO seems to be taxpayer's money not well spent. ACC have failed the people of NZ who have relied upon them to provide this service, while exorbitant and mismanaged projects such as the Nelson office move add insult to injury! Perhaps out of control medical costs also need to bear some of this blame.

Incidently your link to ACC consultation results in "Page not found". Why would I state my case to an organisation that, very clearly, has its own interests at heart and not those of the people it is paid and equipped to serve? ACC has already stated it's position and preference, the public consultation is at best insulting and patronising.

Regards

Jed

Nikkikaye Haveyoursay wrote:
> Dear Jed,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your email regarding concerns regarding how ACC changes
> will affect Motorcycle users. Firstly, the National-led Government is
> determined to preserve and protect our 24/7, no-fault accident insurance
> programme.
>
>
> ACC is facing some real challenges. Its liabilities have ballooned to
> almost $24 billion - $13 billion more than its assets. This is
> unsustainable and unaffordable.
>
>
>
> In 2008/09, ACC paid more than $62 million to motorcycle riders but
> collected only $12.3 million in levies.
>
>
>
> The incidence, severity and cost of motorcycle crash injuries are not
> reflected in current levies. The cost of injuries in motorcycle crashes
> is about four times higher than injuries in other motor vehicle crashes.
>
>
>
> To help make up this difference the ACC Board has proposed a
> reclassification and an increase to the motorcycle levies. Even with
> the proposed increase in levies other motor vehicle owners will continue
> to pay $77 each to cross-subsidise motorcyclists.
>
>
>
> We want to have an open and honest conversation with the public as to
> how they want us to fund the shortfall. If the shortfall is not funded
> through an increase to motorcycle levies, it will have to be funded from
> somewhere else.
>
>
>
> The proposed increases are currently open to public consultation. We
> encourage motorcyclists and other motorists to have their say on this
> issue by making submissions to ACC by 5PM, 10 November.
>
>
> Following public consultation, the Government will receive advice from
> the ACC Board and make a final decision.
>
>
> If you still feel strongly on this matter, I would like to encourage you
> to have your say on the proposals, via this link:
> www.acc.co.nz/consulation
>
>
>
> Thank you once again for letting me know your views.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,

buellbabe

20th October 2009, 13:16

NighthawkNZ

20th October 2009, 13:18

You are assuming all the motorcycles are registered for the entire year.

This is patently not the case. Many motorcyclists are only registering their bike for a certain part of the year and putting the rego on hold for a large proportion of it.

Something that will only get worse if these proposals go ahead.

I'll give you that...

Damon

20th October 2009, 13:18

Cajun

20th October 2009, 13:22

MSTRS

20th October 2009, 13:35

Utterly preposterous that these MPs are completely ignoring the ACTUAL facts and sticking to the lies that have been fed to them.

Me thinks some full page newspare ads are required to get the REAL stats out there for public viewing.
I will happily pay towards them.

Nobody takes much notice of ads in newspapers. The best way to make an impact via that medium is front page headlines and TV 'breaking news'...Gareth Morgan and Sir Owen Woodhouse Expose ACC Lies.
How could that be arranged?

NighthawkNZ

20th October 2009, 13:59

Nobody takes much notice of ads in newspapers. The best way to make an impact via that medium is front page headlines and TV 'breaking news'...Gareth Morgan and Sir Owen Woodhouse Expose ACC Lies.
How could that be arranged?

Unfortunately the more i look into it the closer they come... and course I don't have all the info...

77 dollar arguement
$50,000,000 / $77 = 649,351 vehicles required.

Current fleet 2,788,938 I have no way of knowing how many only pay rego for part of the year as pointed out to me... but it is still a fabractation there is no way 2 million of the vehicles are off the road through out the year... but may there is as the recession and as it takes hold... and as I have said before we are no coming out of the recession we are in the eye of the storm and worse is yet to hit home

MSTRS

20th October 2009, 14:03

Not with you there. Care to try again. In English? Te BDOTGNZA don't do interpretation that well. :weep:

Squiggles

20th October 2009, 14:42

77 dollar arguement

For whatever reason they're aiming to collect 252 million... why? They've yet to front up with the answers. A contact in ACC has suggested that $62million is possibly the cost of existing claims + this years worth of new claims and that $252mill may represent the actual cost of new claims (Only their thought, they werent able to get ahold of the Analysis team for their take on it)... Or maybe $252million is the amount needed per year till 2014 to put us in the green? Answers are needed and they're not forthcoming!

KEN

20th October 2009, 14:50

Ya go for it!!

jed4czar

20th October 2009, 15:22

is it me or is she quoting the same rubbish Simon bridges gave? whats the bet that National has given it's MP's a list of "Facts" to reply to our questions, may be a good idea to point out how stupid she is and suggest she actually does some fact finding of her own

Yep I would say you are correct ... This from Jaquie Dean (Nat MP for South Canty)

Dear Jed,

Thank you for your e-mail with your views regarding your concerns about the proposed changes to motorcycle levies.

The National-led Government is determined to preserve and protect our 24/7, no-fault accident insurance scheme.

The incidence, severity and cost of motorcycle crash injuries are not reflected in current levies. The cost of injuries in motorcycle crashes is about four times higher than injuries in other motor vehicle crashes.

To help make up this difference the ACC Board has proposed a reclassification and an increase to the motorcycle levies. Even with the proposed increase in levies other motor vehicle owners will continue to pay $77 each to cross-subsidise motorcyclists.

We want to have an open and honest conversation with the public as to how they want us to fund the shortfall. If the shortfall is not funded through an increase to motorcycle levies, it will have to be funded from somewhere else.

The proposed increases are currently open to public consultation. We encourage motorcyclists and other motorists to have their say on this issue by making submissions to ACC by 5PM, 10 November.

Following public consultation, the Government will receive advice from the ACC Board and make a final decision.

To have your say on the proposals go to www.acc.co.nz/consultation

Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns.

Regards

Jacqui Dean

Same :shit: different day

jed4czar

20th October 2009, 15:55

Thank you for you reply Mrs Dean.

How can we have a "no fault accident insurance programme" and yet attribute liability for costs??? This is oxymoronic in my opinion.

Pedestrians and Cyclists claimed $37,067,000 in 2008 for road related accidents and they pay nothing specifically for this towards ACC! This makes any "user pays" argument quite specious. Why are they, as victims of road accidents and road users, not also asked to pay towards their own care and recovery? How many of the 8525 motorcycle claims are from people that also own cars and pay their own "subsidy"? Most I would suggest, with some owning more than one car. If we as a community are bearing the financial burden for sports injuries and for those whom work is medically not possible, without attributing fault or asking them to increase their contributions due to their "choice" to play sport or engage in heavy manual work, then why would we suddenly decide that a relatively small sector of the community should bear all costs associated with their "choice" ?

The figures you quote $77 per motorist depend upon how you cut it - The MOT Annual Vehicle Fleet Statistics for 2008 states there are 2,584,509 light passenger vehicles in New Zealand, light passenger vehicles are defined as cars and vans a if we divide the $50,000,000 shortfall (from ACC's own stats) by this number of vehicles we arrive at $19:35 this doesn't include 519,992 Goods vans/trucks/utilities, buses, motorcampers or any of the other road registered vehicle if we did include these vehicles we come to $16:50 subsidy per vehicle. I do not understand how the figure of $77 was arrived at.

Your statement "The cost of injuries in motorcycle crashes is about four times higher than injuries in other motor vehicle crashes" is demonstrably incorrect, again by ACC's own figures, as defined in my original email, they are in fact the cheapest in costs per claim!

Why are we having to bail out ACC from its own mismanagement - The > $500,000 salary of the CEO seems to be taxpayer's money not well spent. ACC have failed the people of NZ who have relied upon them to provide this service, while exorbitant and mismanaged projects such as the Nelson office move add insult to injury! Perhaps out of control medical costs also need to bear some of this blame.

Incidently your link to ACC consultation results in "Page not found". Why would I state my case to an organisation that, very clearly, has its own interests at heart and not those of the people it is paid and equipped to serve? ACC has already stated it's position and preference, the public consultation is at best insulting and patronising.

Regards

Jed

NighthawkNZ

20th October 2009, 16:51

For whatever reason they're aiming to collect 252 million... why? They've yet to front up with the answers. A contact in ACC has suggested that $62million is possibly the cost of existing claims + this years worth of new claims and that $252mill may represent the actual cost of new claims (Only their thought, they werent able to get ahold of the Analysis team for their take on it)... Or maybe $252million is the amount needed per year till 2014 to put us in the green? Answers are needed and they're not forthcoming!

If that is the case then the cost per claim would alot lower across the board, if we are only to use this years claims and payout???

So the contacts suggestion is that it could be this years claims + this years payouts as well as the continuation of previous years payouts. yes/no to my limited understanding :doh:

Squiggles

20th October 2009, 17:12

If that is the case then the cost per claim would alot lower across the board, if we are only to use this years claims and payout???

So the contacts suggestion is that it could be this years claims + this years payouts as well as the continuation of previous years payouts. yes/no to my limited understanding :doh:

Yes and yes (this is my interpretation of their suggestion too), which imo doesnt line up with any of their or the ministers... Where do the figures come from =\