Video: Nick Smith getting yelled at in parliament

[motorbyclist]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/video/news/video.cfm?c_id=1501138&gal_cid=1501138&gallery_id=107867

looks like perhaps he doesn't have much of the support that he needs....

[EJK]

Actual costs for a big motorcycle is $2700?

[Ragingrob]

God they're all a bunch of idiots aren't they.

[scissorhands]

At one point Nick Smith even said it was a big ask.

[Brian d marge]

he just gone and smoked himself retarded.......

he handled the questions well

Stephen

[Elysium]

Don't understand why a bigger bike requires a bigger increase when a scooter hit by a car will still result in the same damage to the rider as that a rider on a bigger bike.

[ckai]

Apart from stats being dished out by Nick the Dick and A$$ has anyone provided actual proof that it costs more for big bikes and is it considerable more than smaller bikes as the levy would suggest?

At the moment, there's been proof that it's the other way around which, based on the A$$ logic would mean the little fella's would get an even bigger increase if the big fella's got a smaller one.

[Swoop]

Actual costs for a big motorcycle is $2700?
John Key, on this morning's breakfast programme (7.30am), said that there were two prices being bandied around.

JUST a bike involved (bike vs corner/tree/etc) would really equate to $2000 ACC levy.

Another vehicle Vs bike = $5000.

Interestingly there was NO mention of bike size OR cc...

[Skyryder]

God they're all a bunch of idiots aren't they.

One stands out. Sandra Goudie asking a Labour Party question, Nick Smith and no other Nat MP picking it up. Outstanding. Even the Speaker missed believing that the question was not relevant to the topic

It took a Darren Hughes to point out to the House that the question asked was in fact a Labour Party question.

But then this is not the first time this sort of thing has happened. And these are the people that are running our country.


Skyryder

[firefighter]

looks like perhaps he doesn't have much of the support that he needs....

Links broken man. I'll see if I can find it.

[bogan]

Links broken man. I'll see if I can find it.

just worked fine for me...

Im strugling to figure out where this $2,700 comes from, 62mil needed, roughly 100,000 registered bikes, sounds like $620 to me? (100k bikes is only from memory though). If i'm not overlooking some major detail here, some-one need to hit the lying SOB up about it.

[firefighter]

just worked fine for me...

Im strugling to figure out where this $2,700 comes from, 62mil needed, roughly 100,000 registered bikes, sounds like $620 to me? (100k bikes is only from memory though). If i'm not overlooking some major detail here, some-one need to hit the lying SOB up about it.

I keep getting this;

Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage

What you can try:
Diagnose Connection Problems

All other sites are loading fine......even when I just go straight to the Harold page it comes up ok.........maybe yet another glitch with Xtra.

Who is your provider?

[Coldrider]

just worked fine for me...

Im strugling to figure out where this $2,700 comes from, 62mil needed, roughly 100,000 registered bikes, sounds like $620 to me? (100k bikes is only from memory though). If i'm not overlooking some major detail here, some-one need to hit the lying SOB up about it.$2,700 is what has been falling out of Nick Smiths mouth via ACC recommendations, has not been supported with any information.

[bogan]

$2,700 is what has been falling out of Nick Smiths mouth via ACC recommendations, has not been supported with any information.

i have just done the calculations, with figures from ltnz http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/docs/2008.pdf and a 62 mill needed, 55k bikes 20k scooters, $880 each or $1200 if only bikes pay. Added this info to the wiki.

[Coldrider]

i have just done the calculations, with figures from ltnz http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/docs/2008.pdf and a 62 mill needed, 55k bikes 20k scooters, $880 each or $1200 if only bikes pay. Added this info to the wiki.There is some figures on SANX thread, 96,952 rego'd mcs.
Came to average $644 each all up.
Mr Smiths comments are probably a random nervous affliction he is developing.
It is totally incorrect only with is other statistics, misrepresenting the public.

[Varkp]

Can't acc put levies on sex. You know using the same case they using against us bikers, sex could cause pregnancy, in turn could cause the birth of a retard that eventually lands itself in a government position which would cause the rest of us to pay for it.

[Coldrider]

"Hon David Parker: Does the Minister accept statements by motorcyclists that they are now paying for accidents caused by cars, and given Mr Judge’s comments on the radio today that the setting of levies is a political decision, does he accept that his Government has got it wrong?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The interesting thing about motorcycle accidents is that even if we assume that every single accident between a motorcycle and a car is the car’s fault, the levies would still have to be over $750. The actual cost for large motorcycles is $2,700. I think that the increase the board has proposed in respect of motorcycles is a big ask, but this country needs to have an honest discussion about the cost of motorcycle accidents and where responsibility for that should rest. It is a final decision for the Government to make and I look forward to the discussion about it. I make the point that if motorcyclists are not to pay for the cost of those accidents, then someone else has to."
Extract of Parliament questions 15 Oct 2009

[Skyryder]

"Hon David Parker: Does the Minister accept statements by motorcyclists that they are now paying for accidents caused by cars, and given Mr Judge’s comments on the radio today that the setting of levies is a political decision, does he accept that his Government has got it wrong?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The interesting thing about motorcycle accidents is that even if we assume that every single accident between a motorcycle and a car is the car’s fault, the levies would still have to be over $750. The actual cost for large motorcycles is $2,700. I think that the increase the board has proposed in respect of motorcycles is a big ask, but this country needs to have an honest discussion about the cost of motorcycle accidents and where responsibility for that should rest. It is a final decision for the Government to make and I look forward to the discussion about it. I make the point that if motorcyclists are not to pay for the cost of those accidents, then someone else has to."
Extract of Parliament questions 15 Oct 2009


Yea I picked that up but lost it further down the track with the cockup Labour Party question.

I think the man can be turned. It depends who can make the most noise.

Smith makes the comment 'if we can assume.' I might be reading inbetween the lines but I suspect that Smith is having a look at 'at fault' stats. If this is the case then he is going to increase the costs to motorists. In doing so the load could be spread as there are more vehicles than bikes. Either way most of us are going to have to pay one way or the other.

This is from another thread. ACC FOUNDER ANGRY AT ACC. and warrants inclusion.

The "blow-out" in losses that led to last week's changes stemmed from a decision by the last National Government in 1998 to allow private sector competition for accident insurance, which required transforming the Accident Compensation Corporation on to the same funded basis as private insurers.

from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10604027

It's a damming indictment on those that believe that this ACC fiasco was Labours fault. I do not disagree that this should have been 'sorted' before now. But to suggest that privatization is the answer when the man who was instrumental in developing the ACC scheme claims otherwise, shows that privatization is an ideology based solution not a cheaper one as those that support the privatization claim.

Rodney Hide and ACT have little interest in the citizens of this country and their willingness to allow the privitsation of NZ assets and services seriously needs closer scrutiny. His comments that ACC has a structural problem may well be correct but not in the manner that he is espousing. The structural problems are those that were removed from the foundation of ACC and replaced with the private sector in 1998 by Jenny Shiply's National Govt


Skyryder


Skyryder

[Coldrider]

By privatising the govt can wash its hands of the dealings, sit back and put its hand out for kickbacks.

[Coldrider]

Nick wants the discussion so he should have it.

I myself have no problem with ACC being self sufficient in funding, a free market approach.
I have no problem with user pays, another free markrt approach, I pay my fair share of perceived vs actual risk based on accurate costs.
But why does Mr Smith then deviate on the free market principle established by insurance companies that the party that caused the damaged does not pay, and is paid for by the victims.

[Skyryder]

By privatising the govt can wash its hands of the dealings, sit back and put its hand out for kickbacks.


And they will be a bit smarter than Fielding.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Nick wants the discussion so he should have it.

I myself have no problem with ACC being self sufficient in funding, a free market approach.
I have no problem with user pays, another free markrt approach, I pay my fair share of perceived vs actual risk based on accurate costs.
But why does Mr Smith then deviate on the free market principle established by insurance companies that the party that caused the damaged does not pay, and is paid for by the victims.


You are wasted in here. You should be in Parliment.

Skyryder

[Coldrider]

You are wasted in here. You should be in Parliment.

Skyryder
It was quoted on 'The Tudors' last night, 'if he is a very wise man, he will know nothing about politics.'
Be-headings were in progress.

[Coldrider]

ACC all up is in debt to the tune of $5,000 per household.
Young Nick is a cornered rat with the ACC portfolio.

[bogan]

There is some figures on SANX thread, 96,952 rego'd mcs.
Came to average $644 each all up.
Mr Smiths comments are probably a random nervous affliction he is developing.
It is totally incorrect only with is other statistics, misrepresenting the public.

can you give me a link to the reference where that number was obtained, once i have the reference i can add it to the wiki

[nadroj]

Does anyone have some hard facts as to what is included in the biker group for payouts?
Do farm bikes, skateboarders, Cyclists, BMXers etc get included in our group as per rumour? If they do, few pay ACC so we effectively subsidize them.

Not only are a lot of bikes not used every week, the rider probably has more than one so is paying more than his share!

I am also wary of digging a hole for ourselves as the minister is stimulating discussion on the subject by rumoured options. If we go in accepting the lesser evil of options we may be agreeing to more than they would accept as their bottom line.

[Coldrider]

can you give me a link to the reference where that number was obtained, once i have the reference i can add it to the wikihttp://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=110116
The extra $1950 ($2700-750) is most likely the internal ACC admin cost and overheads allocated maybe, plus oppertunity cost (the loss of the next best income the investment could have derived).

[Winston001]

Does anyone have some hard facts as to what is included in the biker group for payouts?
Do farm bikes, skateboarders, Cyclists, BMXers etc get included in our group as per rumour? If they do, few pay ACC so we effectively subsidize them.



This link suggests they are separated out.

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

[bogan]

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=110116
The extra $1950 ($2700-750) is most likely the internal ACC admin cost and overheads allocated maybe, plus oppertunity cost (the loss of the next best income the investment could have derived).

Thanks for the link, found cited doc in there and have updated the wiki (those figures look more official than the ones I was using)

not quite sure what all those terms mean, but for them to be charging an extra 1950 for every 750 paid out in a claim sounds a little ridiculous.

[Danae]

WOW he is so full of shit. Good to see that the other MPs are questioning him

[Winston001]

But why does Mr Smith then deviate on the free market principle established by insurance companies that the party that caused the damage does not pay, and is paid for by the victims.

Much as I hate to argue the other side, we need to have our ducks in a row.

The ACC position is that if you choose to ride a motorcycle, then you place yourself at risk 16 times more than in other forms of mechanised transport. No fault involved, no blame, it's a free choice, but if you make that choice then you should contribute more to the pot because you've taken a risk.

In the same way employers ACC premium is assessed on the job risk. If you work with chainsaws, your boss will pay 6 times the amount compared with you working in an office. Hard to argue with.

[Coldrider]

Thanks for the link, found cited doc in there and have updated the wiki (those figures look more official than the ones I was using)

not quite sure what all those terms mean, but for them to be charging an extra 1950 for every 750 paid out in a claim sounds a little ridiculous.Sorry mate, I'm a beanie, what it means is that the ACC may be allocating their internal costs onto each claim, like business do when doing full cost analysis.
ie clerical staff, lawyers, bank, phones, salaries, depreciation of buildings or rent.
This would make sence as theres lot of costs to tag onto each claim.

[bogan]

Much as I hate to argue the other side, we need to have our ducks in a row.

The ACC position is that if you choose to ride a motorcycle, then you place yourself at risk 16 times more than in other forms of mechanised transport. No fault involved, no blame, it's a free choice, but if you make that choice then you should contribute more to the pot because you've taken a risk.

In the same way the employer ACC premium is assessed on the job risk. If you work with chainsaws, your boss will pay 6 times the amount compared with you working in an office. Hard to argue with.

firstly, the 16 times is a blatant lie, see the wiki or sanx's thread for risk assesments generated from NZ MOT data, its around 3-5x depending on injury/fatalitiy..

Aside form that, i can see where they are coming from, but I do not understand why it is the bikers only that are targeted, other more risky sports don't pay ANY acc levies, let alone the full cost. The simple fact we are a minority, and the infrastructure to police these changes already exists, makes us the perfect target for National and ACC.

[Coldrider]

Much as I hate to argue the other side, we need to have our ducks in a row.

The ACC position is that if you choose to ride a motorcycle, then you place yourself at risk 16 times more than in other forms of mechanised transport. No fault involved, no blame, it's a free choice, but if you make that choice then you should contribute more to the pot because you've taken a risk.

In the same way employers ACC premium is assessed on the job risk. If you work with chainsaws, your boss will pay 6 times the amount compared with you working in an office. Hard to argue with.Yes Winston that is how I see it too, but Mr Smith does seem to beg the arguement to happen.
ACC has made recommendations, he happens to be who has to fire the bullets, but it can be discussed for more manageable levels.
After all ACC is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, not the fence at the top, and that is what us motorcyclist are totally ignoring.

[bogan]

Sorry mate, I'm a beanie, what it means is that the ACC may be allocating their internal costs onto each claim, like business do when doing full cost analysis.
ie clerical staff, lawyers, bank, phones, salaries, depreciation of buildings or rent.
This would make sence as theres lot of costs to tag onto each claim.

hmmm, I'm no beanie but that sounds like a massive amount of internal dissipation of funding, maybe thats where they should be looking to cut costs, rather than extracting it from motorists.

[Coldrider]

hmmm, I'm no beanie but that sounds like a massive amount of internal dissipation of funding, maybe thats where they should be looking to cut costs, rather than extracting it from motorists.
That would be the gain for privatisation of ACC for each Insurer Company, as their structures and costs are aleady set up, ACC premiums would be just additional marginal income for them.

[Coldrider]

I have read a couple of submission letters to ACC, written by business organisations, I have to say they are very balanced, and passive to read.
I think emailed responses would be a waste of time, especially identical emails, whereas a correctly addressed letter would have to be opened.

[Winston001]

Aside form that, i can see where they are coming from, but I do not understand why it is the bikers only that are targeted, other more risky sports don't pay ANY acc levies, let alone the full cost. The simple fact we are a minority, and the infrastructure to police these changes already exists, makes us the perfect target for National and ACC.

Mmmm you've answered your own question - m/c are a small and easily defined group.

Tell me - how would ACC impose and collect levies on skateboarders, skiers, rugby players, kids in a playground......??



After all ACC is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, not the fence at the top, and that is what us motorcyclist are totally ignoring.

An excellent point. Instead of increasing levies we should expect ACC to examine the costs and compensation paid out. The rise in claim payments is huge and is the cause of the current funding deficit.

[bogan]

Mmmm you've answered your own question - m/c are a small and easily defined group.

Tell me - how would ACC impose and collect levies on skateboarders, skiers, rugby players, kids in a playground......??



An excellent point. Instead of increasing levies we should expect ACC to examine the costs and compensation paid out. The rise in claim payments is huge and is the cause of the current funding deficit.

I agree with your second point, more preventative action should be taken.

And I agree that it would be very hard to collect levies from other sports. However I still maintain that it is unfair to levy one and not the other; the fact that it is difficult to levy the other in no way justifies this unfairness.
Levy all the population equally, or put all the population into a user pays scheme; these seem to be the only fair options.

[Ixion]

That would be the gain for privatisation of ACC for each Insurer Company, as their structures and costs are aleady set up, ACC premiums would be just additional marginal income for them.

That is just to transfer a benefit from the public sector (ACC) to the private.

Since the private insurance companies will never agree to take on the "old" cases, or the "hard" ones ,they will want to cherry pick the profitable business.

That means that ACC is left with what the private sector does not want, and , in the reverse of the private sector picking up extra business without any investment, ACC will lose income but still be expected to maintain its existing structure.

Prior to the creation of ACC, we had compulsory third party insurance, through the private sector (why does no-one remember this?) . But the insurance companies didn't get to pick and choose the business- those that wished to participate had to set a fee for a specified cover and accept any takers that wanted to take it up . It was done when you paid your rego, like now. I always chose NIMU (North Island Motorists Union) , anyone remember them

[Coldrider]

That is just to transfer a benefit from the public sector (ACC) to the private.

Since the private insurance companies will never agree to take on the "old" cases, or the "hard" ones ,they will want to cherry pick the profitable business.

That means that ACC is left with what the private sector does not want, and , in the reverse of the private sector picking up extra business without any investment, ACC will lose income but still be expected to maintain its existing structure.

Prior to the creation of ACC, we had compulsory third party insurance, through the private sector (why does no-one remember this?) . But the insurance companies didn't get to pick and choose the business- those that wished to participate had to set a fee for a specified cover and accept any takers that wanted to take it up . It was done when you paid your rego, like now. I always chose NIMU (North Island Motorists Union) , anyone remember themYes, the old cases would have to be bought out or grandfathered somehow. That is another reason for the levies to adjust to self-funding by 2014. Acc would be able to fund the old cases, and sell of the customers so to speak.
The old system was when I as more worried about what was in my lunchbox on the way to school.

[Coldrider]

Mmmm you've answered your own question - m/c are a small and easily defined group.


I'm not so conviced, 96,000 rego'd motorcycles, 20,000 on hold (I think), that is a couple or two seats in parliament, more of a force across many marginal seats, have to play our cards right.

[Winston001]

Levy all the population equally, or put all the population into a user pays scheme; these seem to be the only fair options.

And yet general taxation is levied unequally - and people seem happy with that. Indeed there is a common NZ attitude to taxing anyone who earns more than the average. Higher incomes pay higher rates of tax. People with children claim Working For Families tax credits even at levels of $100,000 income. Lots of inequality in there - in fact having children is a cost to the state and should incur more tax..... :D

The proposed ACC levies are an attempt to impose user pays. M/Cs cost more to treat = pay more.

I don't like it, I think the figures are suspect, but I can see the general logic.

[Katman]

After all ACC is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, not the fence at the top, and that is what us motorcyclist are totally ignoring.

Well the fence at the top would be motorcyclists cleaning up their own game.

Good luck with that one.

[Katman]

In fact, here's a radical idea (and totally hypothetical in case anyone thinks I've become even more deranged)........

Imagine if they said "Ok, you've got 12 months to half the number of motorcycle accidents or we're going ahead with the increases."

Imagine what the ensuing peer pressure could do to combat irresponsible riding.

[Winston001]

I'm not so conviced, 96,000 rego'd motorcycles, 20,000 on hold (I think), that is a couple or two seats in parliament, more of a force across many marginal seats, have to play our cards right.

Yes one of the weird things about politics is MPs notice noise rather than substance. Even unreasonable but loud objections can scare them into backing down. The thought that they might lose votes tends to focus their minds too.

My thoughts are that this issue needs to be attacked in a calm and forceful way. Public motorcycle gatherings might feel good but are one-day wonders. Written submissions to individual MPs plus to various Ministers and personal visits are the best approach.

I'm not sure that the Maori Party or ACT are on board either, and Labour probably won't support all of the changes so protest is certainly worthwhile.

[jafar]

In fact, here's a radical idea (and totally hypothetical in case anyone thinks I've become even more deranged)........

As if that were possible;)


Imagine if they said "Ok, you've got 12 months to half the number of motorcycle accidents or we're going ahead with the increases."


Imagine what the ensuing peer pressure could do to combat irresponsible riding.

Probably nothing, the responsible will carry on being so & the rest will carry on as if nothing has happened. Sadly we are not that clever as a group. :argh:

[PrincessBandit]

In fact, here's a radical idea (and totally hypothetical in case anyone thinks I've become even more deranged)........

Imagine if they said "Ok, you've got 12 months to half the number of motorcycle accidents or we're going ahead with the increases."

Imagine what the ensuing peer pressure could do to combat irresponsible riding.

Don't think it would go across well with the ACC knobs though Steven, they want the money out of us one way or another. Motorcyclists halving their claims would be great, but they probably would make more money out of us via their exorbitant increases as opposed to what they would "save" by not paying out for us.

[nothingflash]

WOW he is so full of shit. Good to see that the other MPs are questioning him

Yeah - it seems everyone sitting there thinks he's a knob. If the shoe fits...

[Skyryder]

Much as I hate to argue the other side, we need to have our ducks in a row.

The ACC position is that if you choose to ride a motorcycle, then you place yourself at risk 16 times more than in other forms of mechanised transport. No fault involved, no blame, it's a free choice, but if you make that choice then you should contribute more to the pot because you've taken a risk.

In the same way employers ACC premium is assessed on the job risk. If you work with chainsaws, your boss will pay 6 times the amount compared with you working in an office. Hard to argue with.

No it’s not.

Sir Owen’s 1967 report proposed a single flat-rate levy on all employers and another flat rate on motorists, on the basis that everyone benefited from the work of people in risky industries such as aerial topdressing. Yesterday he disputed claims by ACC Minister Nick Smith that levies needed to reflect different accident rates in different industries and different kinds of vehicles because that would give employers and motorists more incentive to be safe.
“We are saying people are willing to risk killing themselves for the sake of a few dollars of saved premiums. That’s just ridiculous,” he said.


Essentially Smith is trying to argue that those who work in a high risk capacity and oppose an increase on different accident rates for their industy are willing to put themselves at risk for the saving of a few dollars. That as Owen rightly says is just plain ridiculous.

Skyryder

[Brian d marge]

A couple of points here

there isn't a funding deficit this year , ACC made a profit

IF IF

we go the fully funded model ( so that when baby boomer shuffle off or start claiming ...) we will have paid of our mortgage in one lump sum in 2019 or when ever ..

this looks great on any books

Acc is not the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff one of the five wood house principles is prevention

WHICH IS WHAT THEY WERE DOING

who paid for all those drive safely ads on TV

This is purely a a National party agenda they set out on 1993 and are still following

THEY TOLD YOU IN THE ELECTION THEY WOULD DO THIS


They have always said this


The whole Party philosophy is a use pays,Laissez-faire , monetarist neo liberal dream

this is where I and you. as individuals look after No 1 rather than the community caring for the others in our community

While on the face of it this may sound ok, just wait untill you have to start paying

Oh I fogot you are ...750 for ACC ...... :buggerd:

and there are other policies waiting in the wings .... dont you worry !


Stephen

any one have a Student loan??? ,,,or kids working overseas rather than as a doctor in the local Hospital ??????????????????