Submission responses

[dpex]

There's a couple of interesting takes in this reply.

Dear David

I have been asked to respond to your email below on behalf of all nine Green Party MPs Metiria Turei, Russel Norman, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Sue Bradford, Sue Kedgley, Keith Locke, Kevin Hague, Catherine Delahunty and Kennedy Graham.

The Green Party opposes the proposed levy increase for motorcycles. We consider this levy increase to be contrary to the original principles set out by Sir Owen Woodhouse under which ACC was established. One of those principles was that of "community responsibility". Sir Owen himself, at the age of 93, has spoken out against the approach the Government is taking to ACC, stating that proposals to double and treble levies on heavy motorbikes and mopeds, and to push accident victims back to work on much lower incomes than they earned before their accidents, breach the principles of the scheme he authored as head of the 1967 Royal Commission that recommended the ACC scheme.

The community responsibility principle recognises that the various activities that we undertake in society are all inter-related, and that harm and benefit flows on to others, rather than rests solely with the people undertaking those activities.

In the particular example of motorcycle use, the community responsibility principle recognises that just because a disproportionately high number of motor vehicle injuries involve motorcyclists, a significant proposrtion of those injuries are actually caused by someone other than the motorcyclist. It also recognises that increased use of motorcycles where practicable has environmental benefits if single driver car usage is consequently reduced, since the greenhouse gas emissions generated by a motorcycles is significantly less than from cars and the fuel used per kilometre of travel is significantly less for a motorcycle than a car. From that perspective, the Green Party would want to encourage motorcycle use as opposed to car use - however, the Government's proposed levy increase for motorcycles does the opposite.

It is Green Party policy to restore the social contract envisioned in Sir Owen Woodhouse's report from which the original ACC scheme was derived, including the community responsibility principle, and we there oppose pinch-paring measures such as the Government's proposals that attempt to assess the injury risk of every specific activity undertaken in society and set levies based solely on that risk.

Thank you for the figures you have provided. They affirm the view the Green Party MPs already have that much of the so-called "crisis" in ACC is manufactured by the Government to suit its political agenda.

Kind regards
Ivan Sowry
Issues Assistant to Green Party MPs

[sinfull]

Nice letter ! However the Nats have allready bought the Maori's vote with the TV coverage scam and Act are just Keys pawns anyway, with hide peeking out from under Keys skirt long enough to propose privatisation (who didn't see that coming ?)

[Okey Dokey]

I got a letter back from my local Nat MP, Jacqui Dean. Very polite, restated the Nat case, and said they wanted "open & honest conversation with the public" about how to fund the shortfall. Thanked me for expressing my concern. About what I expected, really.

[pzkpfw]

Geez.

I've always hated the Greens, for being as much if not more about socialism as they are for "the environment".

And now I see an example where it's in my favour.

Jebus help me if I have to start voting Green...

[Coldrider]

Nick Smith does not need any support to revise the levies up, that is not a change to the Act, the changes to the Act that need support votes in Parliament are other issues.
Needs to be kept in perspective, however Mr Smith does want submissions to justify himself.

[riffer]

Dear Simon

I have been asked to respond to your email below on behalf of all nine Green Party MPs Metiria Turei, Russel Norman, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Sue Bradford, Sue Kedgley, Keith Locke, Kevin Hague, Catherine Delahunty and Kennedy Graham.

The Green Party opposes the proposed levy increase for motorcycles. We consider this levy increase to be contrary to the original principles set out by Sir Owen Woodhouse under which ACC was established. One of those principles was that of "community responsibility". Sir Owen himself, at the age of 93, has spoken out against the approach the Government is taking to ACC, stating that proposals to double and treble levies on heavy motorbikes and mopeds, and to push accident victims back to work on much lower incomes than they earned before their accidents, breach the principles of the scheme he authored as head of the 1967 Royal Commission that recommended the ACC scheme.

The community responsibility principle recognises that the various activities that we undertake in society are all inter-related, and that harm and benefit flows on to others, rather than rests solely with the people undertaking those activities.

In the particular example of motorcycle use, the community responsibility principle recognises that even though a disproportionately high number of motor vehicle injuries involve motorcyclists, a significant proportion of those injuries are actually caused by someone other than the motorcyclist. It also recognises that increased use of motorcycles where practicable has environmental benefits if single driver car usage is consequently reduced, since the greenhouse gas emissions generated by a motorcycles is significantly less than from cars and the fuel used per kilometre of travel is significantly less for a motorcycle than a car. From that perspective, the Green Party would want to encourage motorcycle use as opposed to car use - however, the Government's proposed levy increase for motorcycles does the opposite.

It is Green Party policy to restore the social contract envisioned in Sir Owen Woodhouse's report from which the original ACC scheme was derived, including the community responsibility principle, and we therefore oppose pinch-paring measures such as the Government's proposals that attempt to assess the injury risk of every specific activity undertaken in society and set levies based solely on that risk.



Kind regards
Ivan Sowry
Issues Assistant to Green Party MPs

[dpex]

Geez.

I've always hated the Greens, for being as much if not more about socialism as they are for "the environment".

And now I see an example where it's in my favour.

Jebus help me if I have to start voting Green...

I think the key to the right direction is found in this comment in the Green's reply.

"The community responsibility principle recognises that the various activities that we undertake in society are all inter-related, and that harm and benefit flows on to others, rather than rests solely with the people undertaking those activities."

Match that comment with the fact that only 'registered' road users pay 'any' form of extra tax for the pleasure. By that very fact the 'community' principle, wherein the entire community benefits from the roading network, not just registered vehicle operators, is abrogated by fuel tax, diesel road-user charges, registration charges, and ACC levies.

In other words, although the entire community benefits from the roading network, only 'some' pay for the benefit. It follows that all 'paying' road users are, in fact, subsidising the rest of the community.

Interesting argument.

I shall put that to a few pollies and await a reply. :--))

[StoneY]

Riffer mate thats FARKIN AWESOME man

Can you see if one of these 'on our side' MPs can come to the Parrot tonight?

Bloody well done mate, a REAL response that reads as its official PARTY LINE

Bling in piles coming your way bro well bloody done
:2thumbsup

[riffer]

Got exactly the same reply.

Still a good reply though.

[paddy]

Geez.

I've always hated the Greens, for being as much if not more about socialism as they are for "the environment".

And now I see an example where it's in my favour.

Jebus help me if I have to start voting Green...

I was thinking exactly the same thing. Say, when is Sue Bradford actually leaving - I don't think I have a problem with the Greens so much as with her. (My personal opinion - your mileage may vary.)

[sunhuntin]

i got a good one from the greens as well! havent check the other replies yet.



Dear Charlotte



I have been asked to respond to your email below on behalf of all nine Green Party MPs Metiria Turei, Russel Norman, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Sue Bradford, Sue Kedgley, Keith Locke, Kevin Hague, Catherine Delahunty and Kennedy Graham.



The Green Party opposes the proposed levy increase for motorcycles. We consider this levy increase to be contrary to the original principles set out by Sir Owen Woodhouse under which ACC was established. One of those principles was that of "community responsibility". Sir Owen himself, at the age of 93, has spoken out against the approach the Government is taking to ACC, stating that proposals to double and treble levies on heavy motorbikes and mopeds, and to push accident victims back to work on much lower incomes than they earned before their accidents, breach the principles of the scheme he authored as head of the 1967 Royal Commission that recommended the ACC scheme.



The community responsibility principle recognises that the various activities that we undertake in society are all inter-related, and that harm and benefit flows on to others, rather than rests solely with the people undertaking those activities.



In the particular example of motorcycle use, the community responsibility principle recognises that even though a disproportionately high number of motor vehicle injuries involve motorcyclists, a significant proportion of those injuries are actually caused by someone other than the motorcyclist. It also recognises that increased use of motorcycles where practicable has environmental benefits if single driver car usage is consequently reduced, since the greenhouse gas emissions generated by a motorcycles is significantly less than from cars and the fuel used per kilometre of travel is significantly less for a motorcycle than a car. From that perspective, the Green Party would want to encourage motorcycle use as opposed to car use - however, the Government's proposed levy increase for motorcycles does the opposite.



It is Green Party policy to restore the social contract envisioned in Sir Owen Woodhouse's report from which the original ACC scheme was derived, including the community responsibility principle, and we there oppose pinch-paring measures such as the Government's proposals that attempt to assess the injury risk of every specific activity undertaken in society and set levies based solely on that risk.



Thank you for the figures you have provided. They affirm the view the Green Party MPs already have that much of the so-called "crisis" in ACC is manufactured by the Government to suit its political agenda.



By the way, cool email address - not difficult to guess what you ride!



Kind regards

Ivan Sowry

Issues Assistant to Green Party MPs

[Reckless]

Now there's a thought!! Every biker makes a protest vote for the Greens next election!
I'm a Nat voter but that would sure screw the Nats up! Prob the country to but its a damn good threat!!
Tell you what if both my regos are due around election I might just get pissed off enough to do it!!! (not that I intend paying both)

VOTE GREEN!!

[Hopeful Bastard]

Anyone notice a common trend in these emails? NO?

I will point it out...


THEY ARE ALL THE SAME!!


What the fuck. Oh wow.. Everyone got a response from the greenies.. But its all the same.. Whats up with that!? :nono: :angry2:

[sunhuntin]

i got 5 replies so far in response to emailing the entire list that was posted in another thread. by far the best has to be the greens.... it is actually a bit personalised, which is a nice touch. heres hoping i get some more over the nest few days.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Charlotte,

Thank for letting me know your views. I cannot see if you have also sent this through to the email "consultation@acc.co.nz" - if you have then please disregard this, but if not, that is the formal email if you wish to make a submission on the ACC consultation process.

Best wishes,

Nikki Kaye
MP for Auckland Central
Address for mail: Parliament Buildings, Wellington
Ph: 04 817 8227
www.nikkikaye.co.nz

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Charlotte,

On behalf of Hon Murray McCully, thank you for your email regarding the proposed increases to ACC levies.

I have passed your email on to Hon McCully for his information.

Kind regards,

Kate

Kate Wadsworth | Electorate Agent
Office of the Hon Murray McCully | MP for East Coast Bays | PO Box 35 657 | Browns Bay | Tel: + 64 9 478 0207 | Fax: + 64 9 479 8089 | Mob: 021 242 8793 | www.mccully.co.nz

---------------------------------------------------------

Dear Charlotte,

On behalf of Louise Upston MP for Taupo I would like to thank you for your email. I have passed your comments on to Louise.

Gabrielle Stewart
Executive Assistant to Louise Upston MP for Taupo

Parliament Buildings
Wellington
ddi +64 4 817 8231
fax + 64 4 817 6441
email gabrielle.stewart@parliament.govt.nz
web www.louiseupston.co.nz
web www.national.org.nz

----------------------------------------------------------------

Tena koe Charlotte

I am writing on behalf of Hon Mita Ririnui MP to acknowledge receipt of your email of 21 October 2009 concerning ACC levies.

Your email will be placed before Mita Ririnui for his information. Thank you for writing.

Naku noa, na

Angela Bray
Executive Assistant

Office of Hon Mita Ririnui
Member of Parliament
Parliament Buildings
Wellington
T: 04 817 9519
M: 021 481 349
F: 04 439 6483
W: www.parliament.nz
Freepost: Private Bag 18 888, Wellington, 6160

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Charlotte

I have been asked to respond to your email below on behalf of all nine Green Party MPs Metiria Turei, Russel Norman, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Sue Bradford, Sue Kedgley, Keith Locke, Kevin Hague, Catherine Delahunty and Kennedy Graham.

The Green Party opposes the proposed levy increase for motorcycles. We consider this levy increase to be contrary to the original principles set out by Sir Owen Woodhouse under which ACC was established. One of those principles was that of "community responsibility". Sir Owen himself, at the age of 93, has spoken out against the approach the Government is taking to ACC, stating that proposals to double and treble levies on heavy motorbikes and mopeds, and to push accident victims back to work on much lower incomes than they earned before their accidents, breach the principles of the scheme he authored as head of the 1967 Royal Commission that recommended the ACC scheme.

The community responsibility principle recognises that the various activities that we undertake in society are all inter-related, and that harm and benefit flows on to others, rather than rests solely with the people undertaking those activities.

In the particular example of motorcycle use, the community responsibility principle recognises that even though a disproportionately high number of motor vehicle injuries involve motorcyclists, a significant proportion of those injuries are actually caused by someone other than the motorcyclist. It also recognises that increased use of motorcycles where practicable has environmental benefits if single driver car usage is consequently reduced, since the greenhouse gas emissions generated by a motorcycles is significantly less than from cars and the fuel used per kilometre of travel is significantly less for a motorcycle than a car. From that perspective, the Green Party would want to encourage motorcycle use as opposed to car use - however, the Government's proposed levy increase for motorcycles does the opposite.

It is Green Party policy to restore the social contract envisioned in Sir Owen Woodhouse's report from which the original ACC scheme was derived, including the community responsibility principle, and we there oppose pinch-paring measures such as the Government's proposals that attempt to assess the injury risk of every specific activity undertaken in society and set levies based solely on that risk.

Thank you for the figures you have provided. They affirm the view the Green Party MPs already have that much of the so-called "crisis" in ACC is manufactured by the Government to suit its political agenda.

By the way, cool email address - not difficult to guess what you ride!

Kind regards

Ivan Sowry

Issues Assistant to Green Party MPs

-------------------------------------------------------------

[Mully]

Nice response.

I'm impressed. They have taken their core thing (the environment) and bundled it around the issue - commenting (well) on the whole issue.

Well done Greens.

[Damon]

Geez.

I've always hated the Greens, for being as much if not more about socialism as they are for "the environment".

And now I see an example where it's in my favour.

Jebus help me if I have to start voting Green...

hahaha ditto, also Janette lived across the river from a highschool friend of mine and she likes to skinny dip with her husband in the summer, if she makes it into power i don't think I could handle all the flash backs

[sunhuntin]

VOTE GREEN!!

mate, i always have, even in the mayoral elections if theres are green mp running, they get my vote.

[Mully]

Anyone notice a common trend in these emails? NO?

I will point it out...


THEY ARE ALL THE SAME!!


What the fuck. Oh wow.. Everyone got a response from the greenies.. But its all the same.. Whats up with that!? :nono: :angry2:

Yeah, I'd noticed that. It's better lip service than anyone else is paying though. Maybe if we encourage the Greens (on this issue) they'll play the game for us.

[buellbabe]

Go the Greens! Got my vote.
What an excellent reply, obviously some thought went into it rather than just the routine "thankyou bla bla I will pass it on" (translation:couldn't give a shit).

[Reckless]

Anyone notice a common trend in these emails? NO?

I will point it out...


THEY ARE ALL THE SAME!!


What the fuck. Oh wow.. Everyone got a response from the greenies.. But its all the same.. Whats up with that!? :nono: :angry2:

They'll always be the same reply. Their political position doesn't change, and they are not going to write 5,000 emails saying the same thing in a different way?
All we need to know is they are against it and a reason or two why.

[Blue TLS]

Anyone notice a common trend in these emails? NO?

I will point it out...


THEY ARE ALL THE SAME!!


What the fuck. Oh wow.. Everyone got a response from the greenies.. But its all the same.. Whats up with that!? :nono: :angry2:

Maybe all the emails they got from us were all the same:yeah: so they saved time by sending that to everyone, its what I would've done

[DMCD]

Nice going, looks like someone has been busy.

[sunhuntin]

the first response was pretty good as well... least she gave me another address to message. the others were very poorly veiled "this is going in the spam box" lol.
i did a BCC to make it look like i was only emailing the one address. lol.

[sunhuntin]

few more replies! any changes like bolded text was done by me.

Dear Ms Masters

Thank you for your email, it has been placed before Hon David Parker for his information and consideration.

Kind regards

Zoe Vakidis for Hon David Parker

Zoe Vakidis
Executive Assistant to
Hon David Parker MP
3.057 Parliament House
Private Bag 18-888
Parliamentary Buildings, Wellington 6044, New Zealand
T +64 4 817 8280
F +64 4 439 6482
E Zoe.Vakidis@parliament.govt.nz
W www.labour.org.nz/parliament

---------------------------------------------------------

Dear Charlotte

Thank you for sending me a copy of your submission, please make sure you submit it to ACC - the link is below.

As a rider of small electric scooter( trying to keep my carbon footprint down!) I share your concerns. But we all need to consider the real problem that we have found ourselves in with ACC when in 2008/09, ACC paid more than $62 million to motorcycle riders but collected only $12.3 million in levies.

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

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 especially, as I have already noted, when 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 costs of injuries in motorcycle crashes are significantly higher than injuries in other motor vehicle crashes - and that is still true even if the accidents involving other vehicles are taken out of the equation.

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.

You may not be aware that these are only proposed increases and they are currently open to public consultation. You are lobbying me- good on you! I also encourage motorcyclists and other motorists to have their say on this issue by making submissions to ACC by 5PM, 10 November.

You can click here to have your say www.acc.co.nz/consultation

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

Best regards

Nicky Wagner

Nicky Wagner MP National Party MP
DDI +64 4 817 6633 | Fax +64 4 473 0469
189 Montreal St Chch 8013 | Ph 03 365 8297
or FREEPOST: Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160, New Zealand

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[nosebleed]

Well done Hopeful Biker, i'll bet you're unstoppable at "spot the difference".
Trouble is, while you were looking for the extra button on the shirt you missed the point...

This letter essentially became the Party Line. It's not just the thoughts of ONE MP who's gonna reply with what you want to hear, this response is what the whole party believes.

Like the Greens or not, their response shows that the Party is as opposed to this as we are.

[Bald Eagle]

the first response was pretty good as well... least she gave me another address to message. the others were very poorly veiled "this is going in the spam box" lol.
i did a BCC to make it look like i was only emailing the one address. lol.

I got pretty much the same responses from emailing the whole list. My response from the greens was pretty much the same
Dear Paul

I have been asked to respond on behalf of all nine Green Party MPs Metiria Turei, Russel Norman, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Sue Bradford, Sue Kedgley, Keith Locke, Kevin Hague, Catherine Delahunty and Kennedy Graham, to your email below.
...etc

So the Greens win the 'smarter email handling' prize today.

[Ixion]

Looks like the Greens have to be promoted to Official Good Bastards.

Means I gotta rebuild my whole stereotype server!. Oh well, c'est bien

Wonder what difference even half of 100000 votes would make come next election?

[MSTRS]

I have taken the step of copy/paste Sun's response letter and sending a response of my own...

Dear Nicky

Your letter in response to motorcyclist's concerns as forwarded to you by a friend of mine is laughable. It does no more than toe the party line and parrot stats from ACC that are proveably wrong.

The figure of $62M is misleading, as it includes all costs going back to the oldest claim still incurring costs, and those claims from previous years have already been covered by levies from those years. New claims are less than 1400 (depending on whose stats are used) and cost about $26M. Incidently, there were some 1150 vehicle/cycle injuries in 2008 costing $12.5M without levy input from the cyclists. And vehicle/pedestrian injuries cost about $24.5M without levy input from the pedestrians.

The figure of $12.3M collected in levies is a moot point. M/c and moped registrations suggest that in fact near $19M was collected. We acknowledge that many registrations are for part-year only, so the figure collected is hard to prove, one way or the other.

ACC's liabilities are $24B ?? So?? Target where that is coming from. It is not Motorcyclists driving that figure.

M/c injury costs are higher than for cars etc? The average car accident/injury is $24,450.00. The average m/c accident injury is $19,700.00.

MOT's 2009 report on vehicle accidents for motorcycles shows they are trending downwards, relative to the numbers of reqistered m/c's
Although the stat's give each year from '51-'08, here are some examples:
In Section 4, pages 68 & 69: 'Motorcycle Casualties And Crashes year ending 31st December 2008'

1951 with 24,779 bikes on the road, 1125 crashes, 1117 injured, 47 killed (inc pillions)
1961 " 41,689 " , 1742 crashes, 1629 injured, 43 killed " "
1971 " 56,441 " , 2668 crashes, 2911 injured, 52 killed " "
1981 " 132,730 " , 3273 crashes, 3376 injured, 116 killed (the heyday period of pillions)
1991 " 72,676 " , 1963 crashes, 2061 injured, 78 killed (inc pillions)
2001 " 57,836 " , 658 crashes, 669 injured, 35 killed " "
2008 " 96,952 " , 1378 crashes, 1396 injured, 50 killed " "


Other motorists are subsidising m/c's to the tune of $77 ea? Where does that come from? Best calculations given the info available show that figure to be $16.60. And with over 400,000 m/c licences held, but with around 75,000 registered m/cs (mopeds can be used with a car licence) and the majority of m/c owners also having cars, how many of 'us' are subsidising ourselves?

So far, there has been nothing 'open and honest' about any utterances from ACC or the govt over this issue.

With regards to the 3 step approach to m/c levies, based on cc rating, where is the evidence that bigger bikes cost more? MOT's own accident stats record the following...43% of police reports didn't give cc rating, the other 57% did and were dominated by the 250cc bikes - THUS INCONCLUSIVE

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the picture. I have made my own submission to ACC.

Regards

[Damon]

As a rider of small electric scooter( trying to keep my carbon footprint down!) I share your concerns. But we all need to consider the real problem that we have found ourselves in with ACC when in 2008/09, ACC paid more than $62 million to motorcycle riders but collected only $12.3 million in levies.


For someone who "shares" our concerns she hasn't done much investigating of her own and continues to tow the party line with her imaginary figures

[short-circuit]

Geez.

I've always hated the Greens, for being as much if not more about socialism as they are for "the environment".

And now I see an example where it's in my favour.



Unless you earn over $200,000 a year, socialist policy will for the most part almost almost work more in your favour.

[Indiana_Jones]

While the Greens might be on our side for this one, they can still go fuck themselves cause they want to take my guns from me.

-Indy

[short-circuit]

While the Greens might be on our side for this one, they can still go fuck themselves cause they want to take my guns from me.

-Indy

Go live in the states if the right to bear arms is your number one concern. You might get some clues while your there as to where NZ is headed in terms of accident cover and healthcare.

[Indiana_Jones]

Go live in the states if the right to bear arms is your number one concern. You might get some clues while your there as to where NZ is headed in terms of accident cover and healthcare.

Let's not start that argument and keep it on topic, I guess the point I was trying to make was, don't blindy vote for someone based on one thing they might support you on, or claim to.

such claims are cheap when they're out of government....

But saying that any support is good at this stage.

-Indy

[Slyer]

+1 For the greens.
Good response.
They're still at around -999 for me but it's a start.

[sunhuntin]

good on ya mstrs! be interesting to see what kind of bs they send back to you.

[MSTRS]

The blue is spreading from around my lips...

[rainman]

Looks like the Greens have to be promoted to Official Good Bastards.


See? See? What have I been tellin' ya? :banana:

:dodge:

There's plenty of "good" in the Greens to work with. Some "misguided" and the occasional bit of "kooky" to be sure, but nothing to be too scared of!

(Crawls back under rock, trying not to appear too smug).

[SlashWylde]

While the Greens might be on our side for this one, they can still go fuck themselves cause they want to take my guns from me.

-Indy

I know Green party members who own guns. Where do you get the notion that the Greens want to take your guns from you? Unless you are being disingenuous or are referring to automatic weapons...

[slofox]

Anyone notice a common trend in these emails? NO?

I will point it out...


THEY ARE ALL THE SAME!!


What the fuck. Oh wow.. Everyone got a response from the greenies.. But its all the same.. Whats up with that!? :nono: :angry2:


Just like the two responses I have had from National Party members (only two I might add). They are both the same as well and trot out the same bullshit stats that are so patently false. I took the time to ask both the responding Nat members to please supply a breakdown of other user groups with the totals they claim and the totals they pay in...like cyclists f'rinstance...Bet I don't get a reply to that!

[Indiana_Jones]

I know Green party members who own guns. Where do you get the notion that the Greens want to take your guns from you? Unless you are being disingenuous or are referring to automatic weapons...

The Greens have made it quite clear they wish to ban all semi-autos

Fully-autos can only be owned with a collectors licence and not used.

-Indy

[Highlander]

Scary thought, what if they actually did want "open & honest conversation with the public" and it is not (contrary to KB rumours and the gut feel of most of us) already a done deal?

Just a thought.



I got a letter back from my local Nat MP, Jacqui Dean. Very polite, restated the Nat case, and said they wanted "open & honest conversation with the public" about how to fund the shortfall. Thanked me for expressing my concern. About what I expected, really.

[sunhuntin]

some more replies

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Charlotte,

Thank you for your message regarding the proposal to increase the ACC levy payable by owners of motor bikes, in some cases by several hundred per cent.

I am opposed to this for two principal reasons:

The first is that it is not necessary. The ACC fund is not in a financial crisis as the current National led government claims. The scheme as originally constituted was a ‘pay as you go’ scheme i.e. the levies received in any one year meet the requirements for payments in that year. In fact the recent history of the scheme has been that the income more than meets the payment requirements. The same applies to, for example, national superannuation. In that case the identification of the effect of the ‘baby boom’ generation coming to retirement and creating a demand ‘bulge’ on the commitment to pay universal pensions at a reasonable level can be anticipated and planned for ( the so-called ‘Cullen’ fund). If the ACC funding was in crisis this could be handled in the same way, but it is not in crisis and no amount of insisting that it is on the part of the present Minister can make it so.

The problem arises because the current government insists that all of the future financial obligations of the fund must be funded in the present. That would make sense if the ACC was an insurance scheme – which it is not and was never intended to be. It makes even more sense if the government has a hidden agenda – which looks increasingly likely – to privatise the ACC or farm parts of it out to insurance companies. In those circumstances, a fully funded scheme in which the fund has been paid for by taxpayers would look a very attractive proposition to a private insurer, but it is one to which I am entirely opposed.

The second reason is that the ACC scheme was never intended to be a user pays scheme in which those who allegedly incur specific costs must, as a group, also meet those costs in full. The scheme is intended to draw upon the overall resources of the community to ensure that those who suffer an accident do not find themselves disadvantaged because they cannot afford treatment or rehabilitation, or meet the expenses associated with a lengthy court case. I note that Sir Owen Woodhouse, whose report led to the setting up of the scheme in 1973 has very recently said precisely that. Saying that motor cyclists must pay much more than presently because they are ‘responsible’ for their accidents not only breaches the principal behind the scheme, it also re-introduces the notion of fault into the scheme when it was set up in the first place to avoid it.

Please be assured that I will be opposing the proposed increased levy and that we in the Progressive Party are committed to restoring the scheme to its original basis when we return to government.

Warm regards,

Jim Anderton
MP for Wigram
Progressive Party Leader

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Charlotte,

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.

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.

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

Jacqui Dean | Waitaki MP | P +64 4 817 6958 | F +64 4 817 0469 | Jacqui.dean@parliament.govt.nz | Freepost Parliament Buildings Wellington 6160 | www.jacquidean.co.nz | www.national.org.nz

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On behalf of the Prime Minister, Hon John Key, I acknowledge your email concerning the proposed changes to ACC.

The issue you have raised falls within the portfolio responsibility of the Minister for ACC. I note you have also copied your letter to the Minister and you will receive a reply from the Minister in due course.

Regards,

Briane Smith

Private Secretary, Office of the Prime Minister

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

[k2w3]

I got identical replies, sunhuntin. Anderton's more personalised one was pleasant. The others, well more of the same crap trotted out again.

[Reckless]

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

CLASSIC end quote on that email!!

They want to take how many bikes off the road with their ACC levy and they're worried about printing one page!! And its from the PM's office!!

SHEESH talk about the Nats making fools of themselves!

[dpex]

I just got the following reply from Jim Anderton. It makes for very interesting reading. See if you can spot the really intriguing points. S'or right. I've highlighted them. :--))


Dear David,

Thank you for your message regarding the proposal to increase the ACC levy payable by owners of motor bikes, in some cases by several hundred per cent.

I am opposed to this for two principal reasons:

The first is that it is not necessary. The ACC fund is not in a financial crisis as the current National led government claims. The scheme as originally constituted was a ‘pay as you go’ scheme i.e. the levies received in any one year meet the requirements for payments in that year. In fact the recent history of the scheme has been that the income more than meets the payment requirements. The same applies to, for example, national superannuation. In that case the identification of the effect of the ‘baby boom’ generation coming to retirement and creating a demand ‘bulge’ on the commitment to pay universal pensions at a reasonable level can be anticipated and planned for ( the so-called ‘Cullen’ fund). If the ACC funding was in crisis this could be handled in the same way, but it is not in crisis and no amount of insisting that it is on the part of the present Minister can make it so.

The problem arises because the current government insists that all of the future financial obligations of the fund must be funded in the present. That would make sense if the ACC was an insurance scheme – which it is not and was never intended to be. It makes even more sense if the government has a hidden agenda – which looks increasingly likely – to privatise the ACC or farm parts of it out to insurance companies. In those circumstances, a fully funded scheme in which the fund has been paid for by taxpayers would look a very attractive proposition to a private insurer, but it is one to which I am entirely opposed.

The second reason is that the ACC scheme was never intended to be a user pays scheme in which those who allegedly incur specific costs must, as a group, also meet those costs in full. The scheme is intended to draw upon the overall resources of the community to ensure that those who suffer an accident do not find themselves disadvantaged because they cannot afford treatment or rehabilitation, or meet the expenses associated with a lengthy court case. I note that Sir Owen Woodhouse, whose report led to the setting up of the scheme in 1973 has very recently said precisely that. Saying that motor cyclists must pay much more than presently because they are ‘responsible’ for their accidents not only breaches the principal behind the scheme, it also re-introduces the notion of fault into the scheme when it was set up in the first place to avoid it.

Please be assured that I will be opposing the proposed increased levy and that we in the Progressive Party are committed to restoring the scheme to its original basis when we return to government.

Warm regards,

Jim Anderton
MP for Wigram
Progressive Party Leader

I shall be replying to Jim and asking him to provide the financial data supporting his claims. If he can provide that then we can go to the medie to show Key is lying!

Then we get the bastard impeached!

[AllanB]

Oh great, now I have to take back all the bad things I said in the past about Jim the Wally.

The man does have a few good points though which is surprising as I'd presumed his brain was well fried after all those years of sucking H. Clarke's arse ............

Well done Jim, thats one MP on our side I guess.

[Ixion]

Bugger. Damn. Blast. Curses.

Never thought I'd hear myself saying it.

But, I guess that means Anderton has to be promoted to Official Good Bastard also. From just plain bastard.

Now I'll go and dissolves my fingers in acid and throw this keyboard into a blast furnace.